Craig Goldman (R-TX)
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers".
A Republican resolution with 13 Republican cosponsors · See all 13 cosponsors
Last activity — Became Public Law No: 119-9.
Became law
Passed both chambers and was signed by the President, or became law without a signature.
Nothing more in Congress: it is law. When it takes effect depends on the dates written into it — some parts start at once, others a year or more later.
What this bill would do
This joint resolution aims to disapprove a specific rule submitted by the Department of Energy. The rule involves the "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers." If this resolution passes, the rule will have no force or effect. This action is taken under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code.
Yes
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
The resolution reduces the cost of regulatory compliance for businesses operating commercial refrigeration.
- Scored +3
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The disapproval of new energy standards may reduce regulatory burdens and compliance costs for businesses.
- Scored +2
Would farmers be better off under this?
Reducing commercial refrigeration standards may lower operational costs for agricultural-related businesses.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -5
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
The disapproval of energy standards may result in higher carbon emissions from commercial refrigeration units.
- Scored -5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
By nullifying the rule, the resolution weakens environmental standards for commercial appliances.
- Scored -2
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Lower energy efficiency standards may lead to higher electricity costs for low-income households.
What Congress actually voted on
3 recorded votes have been taken on this bill. 2 of them decided something; the rest moved it along.
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 214 yes · 193 no
03/27/2025 · Roll call 78 · recorded as “On Passage”
- The Senate: the vote on whether to pass the joint resolution A joint resolution is a bill by another name: it goes to the other chamber and then to the President. Most of them are used to overturn a rule an agency has made. Passed 52 yes · 45 no
05/01/2025 · Roll call 228 · recorded as “On the Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 75”
- The Senate: a vote on whether to start debating something This decides only whether the chamber takes the measure up at all. Nothing about the measure itself has been decided when it passes. Motion to Proceed Agreed to 52 yes · 46 no
04/30/2025 · Roll call 224 · recorded as “On the Motion to Proceed H.J.Res. 75”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Prevention of New Energy Standards: By disapproving the rule, the much-discussed energy conservation standards for commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers would have no force or effect. This prevents the implementation of the specific standards published on January 21, 2025.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Loss of Energy Conservation Standards: The disapproval means the rule submitted by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy regarding energy conservation standards for commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers will not be in effect.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — By nullifying the rule, the resolution weakens environmental standards for commercial appliances. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — The disapproval of energy standards may result in higher carbon emissions from commercial refrigeration units.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The resolution reduces the cost of regulatory compliance for businesses operating commercial refrigeration. Would farmers be better off under this? — Reducing commercial refrigeration standards may lower operational costs for agricultural-related businesses. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Lower energy efficiency standards may lead to higher electricity costs for low-income households. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The loss of energy-efficient appliances could increase long-term utility expenses for families.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The resolution acts to restrict federal regulatory authority over energy standards.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The disapproval of new energy standards may reduce regulatory burdens and compliance costs for businesses. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The removal of energy standards could potentially lead to higher energy costs for consumers over time.
- Public Law (5/10/2025)
The text as it became law
- Enrolled Bill
The final version, on its way to the President
Arrived from the other chamber; nothing has been done to it there yet
- 5/9/2025
- Signed by President.
- Became Public Law No: 119-9.
- 5/6/2025
- Presented to President.
- 5/1/2025
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 45. Record Vote Number: 228.
- Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 45. Record Vote Number: 228. (consideration: CR S2726-2727)
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- 4/30/2025
- Motion to proceed to consideration of measure agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 46. Record Vote Number: 224.
- Measure laid before Senate by motion. (consideration: CR S2683, S2695-2696)
- 3/31/2025
- Received in the Senate, read twice.
- 3/27/2025
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 214 - 193 (Roll no. 78). (text: 3/26/2024 CR H1284)
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 214 - 193 (Roll no. 78). (text: 3/26/2024 CR H1284)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1312)
- 3/26/2025
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.J. Res. 75, the Chair put the question on passage of the joint resolution and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Pallone demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.J. Res. 75.
- Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 24, H.J. Res. 75 and H.R. 1048. The resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 75 under a closed rule, and provides for consideration of H.R. 1048 under a structured rule. Also, the resolution provides for one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each measure.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 242. (consideration: CR H1284-1290)
- 3/25/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/24/2025
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 242 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 24, H.J. Res. 75 and H.R. 1048. The resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 75 under a closed rule, and provides for consideration of H.R. 1048 under a structured rule. Also, the resolution provides for one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each measure.
- 8 Cosponsors added.
- 3/21/2025
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- 3/10/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
- 119-SJRES-44: A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers".
- 119-HRES-242: Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 24) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers"; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 75) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers"; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1048) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen disclosure requirements relating to foreign gifts and contracts, to prohibit contracts between institutions of higher education and certain foreign entities and countries of concern, and for other purposes.
Troy BaldersonRepublican · Ohio
Earl CarterRepublican · Georgia
Dan CrenshawRepublican · Texas
Neal DunnRepublican · Florida
Brandon GillRepublican · Texas
Erin HouchinRepublican · Indiana
Michael LawlerRepublican · New York
Mark MessmerRepublican · Indiana
Riley MooreRepublican · West Virginia
Dan NewhouseRepublican · Washington
Scott PerryRepublican · Pennsylvania
Gary PalmerRepublican · Alabama
Claudia TenneyRepublican · New York