[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 8, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81295-81305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23257]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058]
RIN 1904-AF59
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Clothes Dryers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective and compliance
dates; technical correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') published a direct
final rule to establish amended energy conservation standards for
consumer clothes dryers in the Federal Register on March 12, 2024. DOE
has determined that the comments received in response to the direct
final rule do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct
final rule. Therefore, DOE provides this document confirming the
effective and compliance dates of those standards. This document also
clarifies the introductory notes to the appendices for the consumer
dryer test procedure to conform with the amended standards promulgated
by direct final rule published on March 12, 2024.
DATES: The technical correction in this document is effective October
8, 2024. The effective date of July 10, 2024 for the direct final rule
published on March 12, 2024 (89 FR 18164) is confirmed. Compliance with
the standards established in the direct final rule will be required on
March 1, 2028.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-5649. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Uchechukwu ``Emeka'' Eze, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 961-8879. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Authority
II. Consumer Clothes Dryers Direct Final Rule
A. Background
III. Comments on the Direct Final Rule
A. General Comments
B. Anti-Backsliding
C. Economic Justification
1. Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
2. Energy Price Trends
3. Consumer Behavior
4. Product Reliability
5. SCC-GHG Analysis
D. Unavailability of Performance Characteristics
E. Stakeholder Representation
F. Formal Rulemaking
G. Conforming Updates To Test Procedure Introductory Notes
IV. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
V. Conclusion
I. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule
establishing an energy conservation standard for a product on receipt
of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates),
as determined by the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary''), that contains
recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation
standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C.
6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a
notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that proposes an energy or
water conservation standard that is identical to the standard
established in the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public
comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct
final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct final rule if: (1) DOE
receives one or more adverse public comments relating to the direct
final rule or any alternative joint recommendation; and (2) based on
the rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule, DOE determines
that such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation
may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) If DOE makes such
[[Page 81296]]
a determination, DOE must proceed with the NOPR published
simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the Federal
Register the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn. (Id.)
After review of comments received, DOE has determined that it did
receive adverse comments on the direct final rule. However, based on
the rulemaking record, the comments did not provide a reasonable basis
for withdrawing the direct final rule under the provisions in 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(C). As such, DOE did not withdraw this direct final rule and
the direct final rule remains effective. Although not required under
EPCA, where DOE does not withdraw a direct final rule, DOE typically
publishes a summary of the comments received during the 110-day comment
period and its responses to those comments. This document contains such
a summary, as well as DOE's responses to the comments.
II. Consumer Clothes Dryers Direct Final Rule
A. Background
In a direct final rule published on April 21, 2011, (``April 2011
Direct Final Rule''), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers manufactured on or after January
1, 2015. 76 FR 22454.\2\ These standards are set forth in DOE's
regulations at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'')
section 430.32(h)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ DOE published a confirmation of effective date and
compliance date for the direct final rule on August 24, 2011. 76 FR
52854.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's current energy conservation standards for consumer clothes
dryers are expressed in terms of combined energy factor (``CEF''),
measured in pounds per kilowatt-hour (``lb/kWh''). To demonstrate
compliance with the current energy conservation standards,
manufacturers must use either the test procedure provided at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix D1 (``appendix D1'') or the test
procedure provided at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2
(``appendix D2''). Appendix D1 tests timed drying cycles, and accounts
for clothes dryers with automatic termination controls by applying a
higher field use factor to units that have this feature. Appendix D2
tests ``normal'' automatic termination cycles and more accurately
measures the effects of automatic cycle termination.
On August 23, 2022, DOE published a NOPR (``August 2022 NOPR'')
proposing to establish amended standards for consumer clothes dryers
expressed in terms of CEF as determined in accordance with the appendix
D2 test procedure (denoted as CEFD2). 87 FR 51734.
On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (``Joint
Agreement'') recommending standards for consumer clothes dryers that
was submitted by groups representing manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.\3\ In addition
to the recommended standards for consumer clothes dryers, the Joint
Agreement also included separate recommendations for several other
covered products.\4\ The amended standard levels recommended in the
Joint Agreement for consumer clothes dryers are presented in table
II.1. Details of the Joint Agreement recommendations for other products
are provided in the Joint Agreement posted in the docket for this
rulemaking.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include AHAM,
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water
Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer
Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that make the affected
products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB;
Beko U.S. Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances
Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.;
Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier
Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr
USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances
Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of America; Perlick
Corporation; Samsung Electronics America Inc; Sharp Electronics
Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby
Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool
Corporation.
\4\ The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for six
covered products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers; clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; cooking
products; and miscellaneous refrigeration products.
\5\ The Joint Agreement available in the docket at
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0055.
Table II.1--Recommended Amended Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
Product class CEFD2 (lb/ Compliance date
kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic 3.93 March 1, 2028.
feet (``ft\3\'') or greater
capacity).
Electric, Compact (120 volts 4.33
(``V'')) (less than 4.4 ft\3\
capacity).
Vented Electric, Compact (240V) 3.57
(less than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ 3.48
or greater capacity).
Vented Gas, Compact (less than 2.02
4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
Ventless Electric, Compact 2.68
(240V) (less than 4.4 ft \3\
capacity).
Ventless Electric, Combination 2.33
Washer-Dryer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After carefully considering the recommended energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers in the Joint Agreement, DOE
determined that these recommendations were in accordance with the
statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a
direct final rule and published a direct final rule on March 12, 2024
(``March 2024 Direct Final Rule''). 89 FR 18164. DOE evaluated whether
the Joint Agreement satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as applicable, and
found that the recommended standard levels would result in significant
energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically
justified. Id. at 89 FR 18230-18240. Accordingly, DOE adopted the
recommended efficiency levels for consumer clothes dryers as the
amended standard levels in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. Id.
The standards adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule apply to
product classes listed in table II.2 and that are manufactured in, or
imported into, the United States starting on March 1, 2028. The March
2024 Direct Final Rule provides a detailed discussion of DOE's analysis
of the benefits and burdens of the new and amended standards pursuant
to the criteria set forth in EPCA. Id. at 89 FR 18230-18240.
[[Page 81297]]
Table II.2--Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes
Dryers
[Compliance starting March 1, 2028]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum CEFD2
Product class (lb/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (``ft\3\'') or 3.93
greater capacity) *...................................
(ii) Electric, Compact (120 volts (``V'')) (less than 4.33
4.4 ft\3\ capacity)...................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 3.57
ft\3\ capacity).......................................
(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ or greater 3.48
capacity) **..........................................
(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity). 2.02
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 2.68
ft\3\ capacity).......................................
(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer...... 2.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The energy conservation standards in this product class do not apply
to Vented Electric, Standard clothes dryers with a cycle time of less
than 30 minutes, when tested according to appendix D2 in subpart B of
this part.
** The energy conservation standards in this product class do not apply
to Vented Gas, Standard clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than
30 minutes, when tested according to appendix D2 in subpart B of this
part.
As required by EPCA, DOE also simultaneously published a NOPR
proposing the identical standard levels contained in the March 2024
Direct Final Rule. 89 FR 18244. DOE considered whether any adverse
comment received during the 110-day comment period following the
publication of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule provided a reasonable
basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under the provisions in
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C).
III. Comments on the Direct Final Rule
As discussed in section I of this document, not later than 120 days
after publication of a direct final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct
final rule if: (1) DOE receives one or more adverse public comments
relating to the direct final rule or any alternative joint
recommendation; and (2) based on the rulemaking record relating to the
direct final rule, DOE determines that such adverse public comments or
alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i))
DOE received comments in response to the March 2024 Direct Final
Rule from the interested parties listed in table III.1.
Table III.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the March 2024 Direct Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. in
Commenter(s) Abbreviation the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Smith............................. Smith.................... 65 Individual.
Representative Stephanie Bice........... Rep. Bice................ 67 Federal Government
Official.
New York State Energy Research and NYSERDA and CEC.......... 68 State Agencies.
Development Authority and California
Energy Commission.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM..................... 69 Trade Association.
Manufacturers.
The Attorney General of Montana......... AG of MT................. 70 State Government
Official.
The Consumer Federation of America, CFA et al................ 71 Advocacy Organizations.
Consumer Reports, Green Energy
Consumers Alliance, National Consumer
Law Center, and U.S. Public Interest
Research Group.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, ASAP et al............... 72 Advocacy Organizations.
American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation
of America, Consumer Reports,
Earthjustice, National Consumer Law
Center, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric
Company.
The Attorneys General of the States of AGs of TN et al.......... 73 State Government
Tennessee, Nebraska, Florida, Arkansas, Officials.
Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, Indiana,
Kentucky, Texas, Iowa, South Carolina,
Idaho, West Virginia, Missouri, New
Hampshire, South Dakota, Alabama,
Kansas, Utah, Mississippi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\6\
The following sections discuss the substantive comments DOE received on
the March 2024 Direct Final Rule as well as DOE's determination that
the comments do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
direct final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers. (Docket
No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058, which is maintained at:
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged as follows:
(commenter name, comment docket ID number at page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. General Comments
NYSERDA and CEC reiterated their sustained support for the
recommendations issued in their October 5, 2023 letter.\7\ (NYSERDA and
CEC, No. 68 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ NYSERDA and CEC letter available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith supported DOE's proposal to apply energy conservation
standards to consumer clothes dryers and to periodically determine
whether stricter standards are feasible. Smith commented that the
benefits of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule outweigh
[[Page 81298]]
manufacturer concerns regarding initial costs. (Smith, No. 65 at p. 1)
AHAM and ASAP et al. supported the March 2024 Direct Final Rule for
consumer clothes dryers because it establishes standards that are
consistent with recommendations submitted in the Joint Agreement.
(AHAM, No. 69 at p. 1, ASAP et al. No. 72 at pp. 1-2) AHAM commented
that it finds DOE has satisfied all EPCA criteria for issuing the March
2024 Direct Final Rule because the recommended energy conservation
standards were designed by the Joint Stakeholders (including
manufacturers of various sizes as well as consumer, environmental, and
efficiency advocacy groups; a utility; and some States) to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified in accordance with the provisions
of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o); and because DOE issued the March 2024 Direct
Final Rule together with a proposed rule identical to the standard
established in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule and allowed 110 days
for public comment, which is consistent with EPCA requirements. AHAM
agreed with DOE's determination that the amended energy conservation
standards levels in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule can be reached
through technology options identified in the March 2024 Direct Final
Rule, or through other pathways, and that under the March 2024 Direct
Final Rule, about half of existing consumer clothes dryer shipments
already meet the amended conservation standards. AHAM added that
because the March 2024 Direct Final Rule levels for many product
classes are equivalent to current ENERGY STAR levels, there are a wide
range of these products currently on the market. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp.
4, 5-6)
AHAM further commented that DOE satisfactorily responded to AHAM's
comments and concerns regarding clothes dryer performance, product
classes, consideration of low-income consumers, the new Energy
Information Administration's (``EIA's'') Residential Energy Consumption
Survey of 2020 (``RECS 2020'') data, supply chain challenges, and
harmonization of compliance dates for other laundry products. AHAM
stated that the compliance timeline reduces the cumulative regulatory
burden of this rulemaking and those for other major appliances. (AHAM,
No. 69 at pp. 2-3, 6-7)
CFA et al. supported the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, which they
noted is one of many completed and pending efficiency standards that
will together significantly reduce consumer costs and climate
pollution, as well as reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, which cause
health issues. (CFA et al., No. 71 at p. 1)
Rep. Bice submitted a comment in opposition to the standards
adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. (Rep. Bice, No. 67 at p.
1)
The AGs of TN et al. asserted that the March 2024 Direct Final Rule
over-regulates American households and requested that DOE reconsider
it. (AGs of TN et al., No. 73 at p. 1) The AG of MT expressed agreement
with the AGs of TN et al.'s comments. (AG of MT, No. 70, p. 1)
As discussed in more detail below, DOE has determined that these
comments do not provide a reasonable basis to withdraw the March 2024
Direct Final Rule.
B. Anti-Backsliding
EPCA, as codified, contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1))
The AG of MT commented that the fact the Joint Agreement is
contingent upon other parts being implemented conflicts with the anti-
backsliding provision of EPCA. (AG of MT, No. 70 at pp. 1-2). The AG of
MT further implied that DOE's efficiency standards may violate the
anti-backsliding prohibition in the EPCA when the full fuel cycle costs
of shorter lifespans are taken into account. (Id. at p. 4)
The AG of MT stated that DOE must consider energy efficiency over
the entire product lifecycle. The AG of MT agreed with DOE's statement
that conscientious energy use is more complicated than increasing
efficiency alone, and the AG of MT referenced documents with quotes
from DOE officials testifying to this sentiment. (AG of MT, No. 70 at
p. 3)
As discussed previously, DOE may not prescribe an amended standard
that increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the energy
efficiency of a covered product. Further, EPCA defines the term
``energy use'' to mean the quantity of energy directly consumed by a
consumer product at point of use, determined in accordance with test
procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6293. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) EPCA similarly
defines ``energy efficiency'' to mean the ratio of the useful output of
services from a consumer product to the energy use [as that term is
defined] of such product, determined in accordance with test procedures
under 42 U.S.C. 6293. (42 U.S.C. 6291(5)) Neither the energy use nor
the energy efficiency of a product, as those terms are defined in EPCA,
or measured under the applicable test procedure, is dependent upon the
lifespan of the product or the energy costs upstream from the point of
use, i.e., full fuel cycle costs. As a result, product lifespan has no
effect on whether an amended standard violates the anti-backsliding
provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1).
Additionally, DOE addressed its approach to implementing the Joint
Agreement in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. As discussed there, the
Joint Agreement was contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes
to adopt all of the recommended standards. In other words, DOE could
not pick and choose which recommendations in the Joint Agreement to
implement. See 89 FR 18164, 18173. However, the Joint Agreement also
acknowledged that DOE may evaluate and implement each of the package of
recommended standard in separate rulemakings under the applicable
statutory criteria. As described, DOE's adoption of the recommended
standards conforms with the anti-backsliding provision in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1).
For the aforementioned reason, DOE has determined that the comments
provided by the AG of MT does not provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule.
C. Economic Justification
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including consumer clothes
dryers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In deciding whether a proposed
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving
comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the
[[Page 81299]]
price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered
products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
DOE received several comments on its determination of economic
justification under the statutory criteria.
1. Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
Rep. Bice asserted that increased standards will lead to increased
production costs for manufacturers, which will subsequently lead to
increased costs to consumers. Rep. Bice added that the adopted
standards will limit consumer choice, drive up prices, and impose
onerous regulations on American manufacturers, many of whom are small
businesses. (Rep. Bice, No. 67, p. 1)
The AGs of TN et al. commented that the March 2024 Direct Final
Rule does not weigh heavily enough the appliance cost increase that the
rule will cause and that will be borne by American consumers. (AGs of
TN et al., No. 73 at p. 2) The AGs of TN et al. commented that DOE
expects great savings over the life cycle of new, energy-efficient
clothes dryers while failing to take into account the upfront costs to
consumers and the preferences of lower socioeconomic buyers. The AGs of
TN et al. commented that prior to the Joint Agreement, Whirlpool and
AHAM expressed concern about the affordability of clothes dryers for
low-income households and the fact that for most consumers, purchase
cost is the leading factor in their purchase decision. The AGs of TN et
al. added that many will opt to repair old machines rather than
purchasing more expensive newer models. (Id. at pp. 3-4)
DOE considered the impacts to manufacturers, including the
potential increase in manufacturing costs, in the manufacturing impact
analysis in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule. 89 FR 18164, 18199-18202,
18217-18224. DOE estimates that approximately 48 percent of annual
shipments currently meet the adopted standard levels. Id. at 89 FR
18236-18237. DOE notes that it did not identify any small business
manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers. 89 FR 18244, 18258-18259. In
the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, the life-cycle cost (``LCC'')
analysis calculated the distribution of impacts across a nationally
representative sample of U.S. households. As demonstrated by the LCC
analysis, at the adopted standard, the LCC savings is positive for
nearly all consumers; the fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC
cost is less than 2 percent; the fraction of low-income households and
senior-only households experiencing a net LCC cost is approximately 1.5
percent and 2.5 percent, respectively. Id. Therefore, the March 2024
Direct Final Rule did consider the economic impact of the standard on
the manufacturers and on the consumers of the products subject to such
standard (42 U.S.C. 4296(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)), and DOE has determined that
the comments provided by the AGs of TN et al. and Rep. Bice do not
provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct
Final Rule.
AHAM commented that under the standards adopted in the March 2024
Direct Final Rule, only 2 percent of consumers would experience a net
cost. AHAM commented that on average, consumers will save $223 with a
payback period of 1.2 years, across all product classes. (Id.)
ASAP et al. commented that the amended standards will particularly
benefit low-income consumers, who spend three times more of their
income on energy costs compared to non-low-income households. ASAP et
al. commented that the standards will also benefit renters, whose
landlords might not otherwise purchase energy-saving clothes dryers.
(ASAP et al., No. 72 at p. 2)
CFA et al. commented that clothes dryers are one of the biggest
energy users in many homes, with today's least efficient models
consuming nearly one-tenth of the average home's total electricity use.
CFA et al. also commented that renters, who are disproportionately low-
income households, are often unable to choose their own clothes dryer
yet pay the utility bills--a problem more pronounced in multifamily
housing, which is predominantly occupied by renters. CFA et al. further
commented that the standards adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final
Rule will reduce energy use by 40 percent relative to the least
efficient clothes dryers sold today, benefiting homeowners and renters
alike; for a household replacing an inefficient electric clothes dryer,
the new standards will provide annual electricity bill savings of $44
on average. CFA et al. noted that the standards will also help ensure
that clothes dryers don't over-dry clothes, which can shrink or
otherwise damage them. CFA et al. added that for low-income households,
the average payback period for electric clothes dryers, which make up
about 80 percent of sales, is just four months; for gas clothes dryers,
the average payback period is one year. (CFA et al., No. 71 at p. 1)
2. Energy Price Trends
The AG of MT stated that DOE's reliance on 2022 data for energy
prices and the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023'') for
pricing trends is faulty due to Federal rulemakings being issued that
will force existing generating capacity offline, spike electricity
demand, and decrease fossil fuel supply, as illustrated with several
documents attached to the comment. (AG of MT, No. 70 at p. 5)
DOE contends that AEO2023 remains the best available source for
projections of future energy price trends based on adopted energy
policies. DOE also performed sensitivity analyses using alternate
AEO2023 growth scenarios with low and high energy prices relative to
the reference scenario in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule to assess
the impact of alternative energy price projections. 89 FR 18164, 18198.
The results of these scenarios are available in appendix 10C of the
March 2024 Direct Final Rule technical support document (``TSD'') and
show that consumers of consumer clothes dryers would still experience
positive cumulative net present value (``NPV'') even when considering
lower and higher energy prices.
Therefore, the March 2024 Direct Final Rule did take into account
energy price variability in its analysis, and DOE has determined that
the comment provided by the AG of MT does not provide a reasonable
basis for withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule.
3. Consumer Behavior
The AG of MT stated that DOE acknowledges but disregards consumer
preference and assumes consumers are ignorant. The AG of MT attached
studies demonstrating consumer preference for product lifetime over
energy consumption, and the AG of MT commented that these longer-life
appliances may use less energy over the entire life cycle and be lower
cost to the consumer, yet DOE did not address those issues. (AG of MT,
No. 70, p. 2)
[[Page 81300]]
DOE did not disregard consumer preference but rather noted in the
March 2024 Direct Final Rule that the economics literature provides a
wide-ranging discussion of how consumers trade off up-front costs and
energy savings in the absence of government intervention. 89 FR 18164,
18231. Much of this literature explains why consumers appear to
undervalue energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that
consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of
information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or
aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant
delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term,
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings
relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant trade-
offs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between renters
and owners, or builders and purchasers). Id. Having less-than-perfect
foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, consumers
may trade off these types of investments at a higher-than-expected rate
between current consumption and uncertain future energy cost savings.
Id.
Potential changes in the benefits and costs associated with a
standard due to changes in consumer purchase decisions were included in
the analysis for the March 2024 Direct Final Rule in two ways. Id.
First, if consumers forgo the purchase of a product in the standards
case, as estimated based on price elasticity related to empirical data
on appliances, this decreases sales for product manufacturers, and the
impact on manufacturers attributed to lost revenue is included in the
manufacturer impact analysis. Id. Second, DOE accounts for energy
savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the
standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products
purchased by consumers, leading to repair existing clothes dryers or
purchase of used ones, this decreases the potential energy savings from
an energy conservation standard.
4. Product Reliability
Further, the AG of MT stated that the reliability of products
affected by the rulemaking will decrease due to complexity increases,
which the commenter asserted is supported by engineering facts
illustrated in a document attached to their comment, yet DOE does not
address this issue. The AG of MT also commented that complexity
increases will lead to less economic viability of repair, which is not
reflected in DOE's assumption that the rulemaking will have no impact
on lifespan. The AG of MT commented DOE disregards the fact that
reliability can be increased by lightening the electrical, mechanical,
thermal, and other conditions of operation of the components, which
tends to decrease energy efficiency but results in less repair downtime
and longer times before replacement and, therefore, decreased costs, as
illustrated in attached documents. (AG of MT, No. 70, pp. 3-5)
The AG of MT referenced a previous comment made by Whirlpool \8\ in
which Whirlpool asserted that consumers may continue replacing cheaper
components well into the life of an electromechanically controlled
clothes dryer, extending its life, while they may not decide to make a
more expensive electronic component repair, like a user interface
assembly, after several years of ownership of an electronic control
clothes dryer. The AG of MT reiterated Whirlpool's statement that DOE's
previously proposed standards may effectively shorten the useful life
of a consumer clothes dryer because of this repair-versus-replacement
calculus, resulting in loss of time-saving benefits of clothes dryer
ownership. (Id. at p. 4) The AG of MT commented that DOE's use of a
single lifespan in its analysis for this rulemaking was in error. (Id.
at p.3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Whirlpool, No. 53 at pp. 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASAP et al. commented that they do not expect the standards in the
March 2024 Direct Final Rule to have any impact on product reliability
because the amended standards can be met with simple design changes
that have already been incorporated in many models on the market today.
ASAP et al. presented a figure of historical RECS data showing that the
distribution of clothes dryer age remained largely unchanged between
2005 and 2020 as clothes dryer efficiency improved. (ASAP et al., No.
72 at pp. 3-4)
AHAM commented that the recommended standards are economically
justified as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) and will not
result in lessening of utility, reliability, performance or
availability of the clothes dryers considered under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV).
In contrast to the comment from the AG of MT and as noted in the
March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE's review of clothes dryer product
reliability information provides no indication that higher-efficiency
products are less reliable at the adopted standard levels--i.e., ENERGY
STAR efficiency level products relative to baseline products. Hence,
notwithstanding theoretical conjecture that higher-efficiency products
may have poor reliability based on simplified textbook models, no real-
world evidence or data related to the technologies used at the adopted
standard levels can be found clearly supporting such a correlation. The
AG of MT did not specify how the referenced documents on network node
analysis and reliability theory correspond to the technologies used at
the adopted standard levels for consumer clothes dryers. In the absence
of data specific to the technologies used in clothes dryer products,
DOE has no practical basis to model the theoretical concern from the AG
of MT at the adopted standard levels.
As described in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE did not use a
single lifespan in its analysis for the consumer clothes dryer
rulemaking. Instead, DOE assigned a range of lifespan from 1 to 30
years, based on the Weibull lifetime distribution. DOE further notes
that the lifetime distribution used in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule
is based on actual lifetime values in the field, which were developed
from historical shipments data and surveys. DOE observed that from the
2015 RECS to the 2020 RECS, there was a 6 percent increase in the
number of consumer clothes dryers retiring before reaching 4 years of
age, and an additional 1 percent lasting beyond 15 years. However, DOE
did not find that the average lifetime for consumer clothes dryers has
significantly changed, as the increase in the Weibull distribution is
reflected in both early appliance retirement and extended use beyond 15
years. Therefore, the estimated average lifetime for consumer clothes
dryers remains at 14 years. 89 FR 18164, 18191. In addition, DOE is
unaware of data that suggests a different lifetime associated with the
technology options considered in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, and
no such data was provided by stakeholders.
In response to the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, AHAM commented
that the adopted standard will not impact the reliability of products
at the adopted level, and it further stated that the standard levels
are achievable by technology readily available on the market. (AHAM,
No. 69 at p. 5)
As discussed in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE did take into
account product reliability, lifetimes, and cost of repair when
considering the LCC of more efficient products when supported by
available data. See 89 FR 18164, 18190. Therefore, the March 2024
Direct Final Rule did take into account consumer purchase decisions in
[[Page 81301]]
its analysis, and DOE has determined that the comment provided by the
AG of MT does not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
March 2024 Direct Final Rule.
5. SCC-GHG Analysis
The AG of MT commented that greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions and
climate change impacts should not be part of EPCA rulemakings, but
given their inclusion, DOE must consider them throughout the entire
life cycle of the product, including manufacturing and potential
reductions in lifespan due to increased complexity. (AG of MT, No. 70
at p. 6) The AG of MT also referred to a statement made to the U.S.
Senate Subcommittee on Energy to indicate that 40 to 60 percent of the
carbon footprint for many consumer products can be attributed to the
supply chain.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/3D26FA56-F102-9E9F-BEA4-52BB0085B19A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the McKinsey report, which is the primary source for the
statement made to the U.S. Subcommittee on Energy, is only referring to
the manufacturing company's energy and carbon footprint that can reside
upstream in its supply chain and does not include the energy and
emissions associated with the usage phase of the appliance life cycle,
which represents more than 90 percent of the total for large
appliances.\10\ As such, the energy and carbon footprint associated
with supply chain likely accounts for approximately 4 to 6 percent of
the overall carbon footprint of a product. In the March 2024 Direct
Final Rule, DOE accounted for the environmental and public health
benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy, including
those connected to global climate change, as they are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy conservation
under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 89 FR 18164, 18228-
18230. This analysis focused on the estimated reduced emissions
expected to result during the lifetime of consumer clothes dryers
shipped during the projection period. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Gonzalez, A., A. Chase, and N. Horowitz. 2012. ``What We
Know and Don't Know about Embodied Energy and Greenhouse Gases for
Electronics, Appliances, and Light Bulbs.'' Energy Solutions and
Natural Resources Defense Council. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy
Efficiency in Buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AG of MT stated that the Interagency Working Group's
(``IWG's'') social cost of GHG (``SC-GHG'') based on global impacts is
inconsistent with EPCA's requirements for standards to consider
economic implications to U.S. consumers. The AG of MT claimed that DOE
erroneously appears to assume that all benefits accrue to U.S.
citizens, despite using global values. The AG of MT cited the case of
Louisiana v. Biden to demonstrate questions related to the accuracy of
the IWG's SC-GHG estimates. (AG of MT, No. 70, p. 6)
First, as stated in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE
determined that the rule was economically justified without accounting
for the social cost of greenhouse gases. 89 FR 18164, 18232. DOE,
however, reiterates its view that the environmental and public health
benefits associated with more efficient use of energy, including those
connected to global climate change, are important to take into account
when considering the need for national energy conservation. (See 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) In addition, Executive Order 13563, which
was reaffirmed on January 21, 2021, stated that each agency must, among
other things, ``select, in choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).'' Regarding the use of
global SC-GHG values, many climate impacts that affect the welfare of
U.S. citizens and residents are better reflected by global measures of
SC-GHG. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation
activities requires consideration of how those actions may affect
mitigation activities by other countries, as those international
mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and
residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and
residents.
The AG of MT stated the monetized GHG benefits largely accrue
centuries in the future, well beyond the rulemaking analysis period.
Furthermore, the AG of MT stated that DOE improperly mixed discount
rates in its cost-benefit analysis. (AG of MT, No. 70 at p. 6)
DOE's March 2024 Direct Final Rule analysis considers the costs and
benefits associated with 30 years of shipments of a covered product.
Because a portion of products shipped within this 30-year period
continue to operate beyond 30 years, DOE accounts for energy cost
savings and reductions in emissions until all products shipped within
the 30-year period are retired. 89 FR 18164, 19167, 19169. In the case
of carbon dioxide emissions, which remain in the atmosphere and
contribute to climate change for many decades, the benefits of
reductions in emissions likewise occur over a lengthy period; to not
include such benefits would be inappropriate. Id.
With regards to discount rates used, the IWG found that the use of
the social rate of return on capital (7 percent under current Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-4 guidance) to discount the future
benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately underestimates the
impacts of climate change for the purposes of estimating the SC-GHG.
Consistent with the findings of the National Academies and the economic
literature, the IWG continued to conclude that the consumption rate of
interest is the theoretically appropriate discount rate in an
intergenerational context and recommended that discount rate
uncertainty and relevant aspects of intergenerational ethical
considerations be accounted for in selecting future discount rates.
With regards to ``mixing discount rates'' (which DOE understands to
refer to use of different discount rates for monetizing climate-related
benefits and for estimating the NPV consumer benefits), DOE consulted
the National Academies' 2017 recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates
can ``be combined in Regulatory Impact Analyses (``RIAs'') with other
cost and benefits estimates that may use different discount rates.''
The National Academies reviewed several options, including ``presenting
all discount rate combinations of other costs and benefits with [SC-
GHG] estimates.'' 89 FR 18164, 18206.\11\ DOE's approach is consistent
with the National Academies' recommendations and is not improper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Following the issuance of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule,
DOE issued a rulemaking document in an unrelated matter in which it
preliminarily determined that new, updated SC-GHG estimates
promulgated in 2023 by EPA (2023 SC-GHG estimates) represent a
significant improvement in estimating SC-GHG. See 89 FR 59692,
59700-59701. DOE preliminarily determined that the updated 2023 SC-
GHG estimates reflect the best available scientific and analytical
evidence and methodologies, are accordingly the most appropriate for
DOE analyses, and best facilitate sound decision-making by
substantially improving the transparency of the estimates and
representations of uncertainty inherent in such estimates. Id. DOE
welcomed comment on that preliminary determination. Id.
Because it issued the March 2024 Direct Final Rule prior to
making that preliminary determination, DOE estimated the climate
benefits of the standards adopted in this rule using the IWG's SC-
GHG estimates. As noted in the text, DOE's decision to adopt the
March 2024 Direct Final Rule's standards did not depend on the cost
of greenhouse gasses; nor would the decision change based on a
revised estimate of the cost of greenhouse gasses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, DOE has determined that the comments provided by the AG
of MT does not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the March
2024 Direct Final Rule.
[[Page 81302]]
D. Unavailability of Performance Characteristics
EPCA specifies the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new
standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4))
Rep. Bice asserted that the adopted standards will limit consumer
choice. (Rep. Bice, No. 67 at p. 1). The AGs of TN et al. also
commented that the adopted standards will limit consumer choice. (AGs
of TN et al., No. 73 at p. 9)
DOE's data demonstrates that manufacturers of consumer clothes
dryers currently offer units that meet or exceed the adopted standards.
As such, DOE determined the March 2024 Direct Final Rule would not
result in the unavailability of products that are substantially the
same as those currently available in the United States. 89 FR 18164,
18226-18227. Therefore, DOE has determined that the comments provided
by Rep. Bice and the AGs of TN et al. do not provide a reasonable basis
for withdrawal of the March 2024 Direct Final Rule.
ASAP et al. commented that the amended standards, combined with the
new test procedure, will ensure that consumer clothes dryers adequately
dry clothing and will not negatively impact performance. ASAP et al.
added that consumer clothes dryers that already meet the new standards
provide improved drying performance relative to less-efficient models,
as demonstrated by Consumer Reports studies and test data. (ASAP et
al., No. 72 at pp. 2-3)
ASAP et al. noted that the amended standards will not preclude the
use of electro-mechanical controls, allowing consumers a preferred user
experience. (Id. at p. 3)
ASAP et al. noted that the amended standards will not require an
increase in cycle time. ASAP et al. noted that there is no evidence
that the frequency of running multiple clothes dryer cycles has
increased over time or will increase in the future as a result of the
amended standards. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it supported the energy conservation standards
in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule because DOE's data demonstrate that
when tested under the applicable test procedure for amended standards,
there is no significant difference in cycle time between clothes dryers
in its data set that are less efficient than the amended standards and
those that just meet the amended standard levels. AHAM cited as an
example the difference in average cycle time of only about 2 minutes
between electric standard clothes dryers in DOE's data set that are
less efficient than AHAM's recommended standard and those that just
meet its recommended standard level (with CEFs of 3.93 and 3.94,
respectively). Thus, AHAM commented that it supported the energy
conservation standards adopted in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule.
(AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 1-2)
AHAM commented that the energy conservation standards adopted in
the March 2024 Direct Final Rule will not result in significant
lessening of utility, reliability, performance, or availability of the
covered products as prohibited under the so-called ``safe harbor''
exception of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(IV). (Id. at pp. 4-5)
AHAM commented that the test procedure used to determine compliance
with amended standards for consumer clothes dryers (i.e., appendix D2)
requires that clothes dryers meet a threshold for ``final moisture
content'' to be certified as compliant--the final moisture content
requirement ensures that compliant clothes dryers will adequately dry
clothes. AHAM added that more than 400 electric clothes dryer models
and nearly 200 gas clothes dryer models meet the final moisture content
threshold and are certified to the current ENERGY STAR specification,
which is equivalent to AHAM's recommended standard levels and is based
on appendix D2. AHAM therefore does not anticipate that the energy
conservation standards recommended in the Joint Agreement and
established in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule will negatively affect
features or performance, including cycle time. (Id. at p. 5)
NYSERDA and CEC reiterated their support for the recommendations in
the Joint Agreement and echoed the clarification regarding ``short
cycle'' products made in the February 15, 2024 letter to DOE by ASAP
and AHAM. This clarification specified that the recommendations in the
Joint Agreement did not address ``short cycle'' products for clothes
washers, clothes dryers, and dishwashers as so-called ``short cycle''
product classes did not exist at the time the recommendations were
submitted to DOE and do not exist at this time.\12\ This letter also
highlighted that the signatories to the Joint Agreement do not
anticipate that amended standards will negatively affect features or
performance, including cycle time. (NYSERDA and CEC, No. 68 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ASAP and AHAM letter available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Stakeholder Representation
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates),
as determined by DOE, may submit a joint recommendation to DOE for new
or amended energy conservation standards.
The AGs of TN et al. questioned the expertise and relevancy of
several advocacy groups who contributed to the Joint Agreement (i.e.,
the Alliance for Water Efficiency, Earthjustice, the Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the
National Consumer Law Center). The AGs of TN et al. asserted that most
of the advocacy groups have no expertise in setting energy efficiency
standards for consumer clothes dryers, and failed to raise concerns
related to the upfront cost of more efficient appliances to low-income
households. (AGs of TN et al., No. 73 at p. 3)
The AGs of TN et al. commented that 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) requires a
joint statement from ``interested persons that are fairly
representative of the relevant points of view,'' and it must include
``representatives of . . . States.'' The AGs of TN et al. asserted that
the Joint Agreement does not meet that standard, as very few States
supported DOE's consumer clothes dryer regulations and were not
signatories to the Joint Agreement. The AGs of TN et al. stated that
interested persons should include more States, which are the direct
representatives of consumers. The AGs of TN et al. added that State
entities are direct purchasers of these appliances and thus will
directly bear the burden of increased costs for appliances, and the
March 2024 Direct Final Rule also preempts State procurement standards
with less stringent energy-efficiency rules in contradiction of Federal
law. (Id. at pp. 4-5)
The AG of MT agreed with the AGs of TN et al.'s concerns over the
participants in the Joint Agreement underlying the March 2024 Direct
Final Rule, along with their concerns that the group does not comply
with EPCA. (AG of MT, No. 70 at pp. 1-2)
AHAM commented that the stakeholders who submitted the Joint
Agreement are representative of a wide range of expert and relevant
points of view--including manufacturers of various sizes representing
nearly 100
[[Page 81303]]
percent of the market for consumer clothes dryers; consumer,
environmental, and efficiency advocacy groups; a utility; and several
States that participated in the negotiation discussions and filed
comments in support of the agreement. AHAM concluded that the March
2024 Direct Final Rule benefits both the manufacturers and consumers
that these organizations represent. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 3-4)
In response to the comments regarding whether the Joint Agreement
was submitted by persons fairly representative of relevant points of
view, DOE reiterates that 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) states that if the
criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) are met, the Secretary may issue a final
rule that establishes an energy conservation standard ``[o]n receipt of
a statement that is submitted jointly by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relevant points of view (including
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and
efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary.'' (42 U.S.C.
6295(p))
As stated in the March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that
this requirement was met. 89 FR 18164, 18174-18175. The Joint Agreement
included a trade association, AHAM, which represents 11 manufacturers
of the subject covered products--consumer clothes dryers. Id. The Joint
Agreement also included environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy
organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, and a gas and electric
utility company. Id. Additionally, DOE received a letter in support of
the Joint Agreement from the States of New York, California, and
Massachusetts (see comment No. 56). Id. DOE also received a letter in
support of the Joint Agreement from the gas and electric utility, San
Diego Gas and Electric, and the electric utility, Southern California
Edison (see comment No. 57). Id. Each of the listed categories of
persons described in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) supported the Joint
Agreement.
DOE has ample authority to accept a joint statement in these
circumstances. EPCA does not require that the Joint Agreement be
representative of every point of view. Nor does it require that a
statement be submitted by all interested persons. Rather, it requires a
statement from a sufficient number and diversity of ``interested
persons'' such that the statement is ``fairly representative of
relevant points of view.'' The Joint Agreement presented here is such a
statement, as the Secretary determined.
Contrary to the commenters' suggestion, EPCA does not include any
requirement that ``relevant points of view'' must include ideologically
opposed points of view. Rather, EPCA ensures a diversity of opinions
and interests by requiring that parties that provide a joint agreement
must be fairly representative of relevant points of view (including
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and
efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A))
Moreover, regardless of whether amended energy conservation
standards are recommended as part of a joint agreement or proposed by
DOE, the standards have to satisfy the same criteria in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o). Thus, once DOE has determined that a joint agreement was
submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of
relevant points of view, DOE then determines whether the joint
agreement satisfies the relevant statutory criteria. As a result, in
evaluating whether comments provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing
a direct final rule, it is the substance of the comments, not the
number of stakeholders that submit statements in favor of, or opposed
to, the joint agreement, that determines whether a rule should be
withdrawn.
DOE also finds meritless the contention that the Joint Agreement
parties are not competent to present a statement for purposes of
section 6295(p). Contrary to the characterizations by the AGs of TN et
al. and AG of MT, the parties to the Joint Agreement have an
established historical record of participation in DOE rulemakings and
have submitted detailed comments in the past that demonstrate a
thorough understanding of technical, legal, and economic aspects of
appliance standards rulemakings, including factors affecting specific
groups such as low-income households.
In a follow-up letter from the parties to the Joint Agreement, each
organization provided a brief description of its background. American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy is a nonprofit research
organization and its independent analysis advances investments,
programs, and behaviors that use energy more effectively and help build
an equitable clean energy future. Alliance for Water Efficiency is a
nonprofit dedicated to efficiency and sustainable use of water that
provides a forum for collaboration around policy, information sharing,
research, education, and stakeholder engagement. ASAP organizes and
leads a broad-based coalition effort that works to advance new
appliance, equipment, and lighting standards that cut emissions that
contribute to climate change and other environmental and public health
harms, save water, and reduce economic and environmental burdens for
low- and moderate-income households. AHAM represents more than 150
member companies that manufacture 90 percent of the major, portable and
floor care appliances shipped for sale in the United States. CFA is an
association of more than 250 non-profit consumer and cooperative groups
that advances the consumer interest through research, advocacy, and
education. Consumer Reports is a mission-driven, independent, nonprofit
member organization that empowers and informs consumers, incentivizes
corporations to act responsibly, and helps policymakers prioritize the
rights and interests of consumers in order to shape a truly consumer-
driven marketplace. Earthjustice is a nonprofit public interest
environmental law organization advocating to advance clean energy and
combat climate change. National Consumer Law Center supports consumer
justice and economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged
people in the United States through its expertise in policy analysis
and advocacy, publications, litigation, expert witness services, and
training. National Resources Defense Council is an international
nonprofit environmental organization with expertise from lawyers,
scientists, and other environmental specialists. Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance is a collaboration of 140 utilities and efficiency
organizations working together to advance energy efficiency in the
Northwest on behalf of more than 13 million consumers. Pacific Gas and
Electric Company represents one of the largest combined gas and
electric utilities in the Western United States, serving over 16
million customers across northern and central California.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ This document is available in the docket:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, DOE notes that it had no role in requesting that the
parties to the Joint Agreement submit the Joint Agreement or in
negotiating the terms of the Joint Agreement. As noted in the Joint
Agreement itself, the parties negotiated and accepted the agreement
based on the totality of the agreement. DOE's participation was limited
to evaluating the joint submission under the criteria set forth in 42
U.S.C. 6295(p). DOE also notes that the preemptive effect of Federal
energy conservation standards
[[Page 81304]]
on State laws is clearly described in EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6297.
Therefore, DOE reaffirms its determination that the Joint Agreement
was submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of
relevant points of view.
F. Formal Rulemaking
The AGs of TN et al. recommended that before enacting these
stringent new standards for consumer clothes dryers, DOE return to
formal rulemaking or, at a minimum, to proceed with informal notice-
and-comment rulemaking to allow States and other relevant parties to
participate in rulemaking processes that affect nearly every household
appliance and also ensure a minimal level of political accountability
by giving visibility to internal agency deliberations. The AGs of TN et
al. further commented that the lack of a formal process does not allow
people the opportunity to comment on rules that touch the lives of
nearly all Americans. (AGs of TN et al., No. 73 at pp. 5-8) The AG of
MT similarly recommended that DOE halt the rulemaking. (AG of MT, No.
70 at p. 7)
The AG of MT expressed concern about pretext and circumvention of
the Administrative Procedure Act, regarding DOE's conduct in this
rulemaking and in recent litigations. (Id. at pp. 1-2)
AHAM stated that interested parties have had ample opportunity to
comment through multiple stages of rulemaking. AHAM noted that, in
fact, the March 2024 Direct Final Rule process provided an extra 110
days for interested parties to review DOE's final rule and submit
comments--which met EPCA requirements. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 3-4)
In response, DOE notes that Congress granted DOE the authority to
issue energy conservation standards as direct final rules subject to
certain conditions and procedural requirements. As discussed in the
March 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that Joint Agreement was
submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative
of relevant points of view and the adopted energy conservation
standards as recommended in the Joint Agreement would result in
significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and
economically justified as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and provided
supporting analysis. 89 FR 18164, 18174-18175.
Additionally, DOE notes it followed the procedures in 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4) to publish a direct final rule in the Federal Register
simultaneously with a NOPR proposing identical standards and allowed
110 days for public comment. See 89 FR 18164 and 89 FR 18244. Regarding
the comment about formal rulemaking, DOE has met all of its statutory
requirements under its direct rule authority, which does not require
formal rulemaking.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ DOE notes that outside of its direct rulemaking authority,
DOE utilizes informal or legislative rulemaking (i.e., notice and
comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553) when it promulgates rules under EPCA, not formal rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Conforming Updates To Test Procedure Introductory Notes
The test procedures at appendix D1 and appendix D2 contain
introductory notes that specify that either appendix D1 or appendix D2
must be used to determine compliance with energy conservation standards
for clothes dryers manufactured on or after January 1, 2015, among
other details.
The amended standards promulgated by the March 2024 Direct Final
Rule are denoted in terms of CEF as determined in accordance with
appendix D2 (i.e., appendix D1 may not be used to determine compliance
with the amended standards). Accordingly, in this document, DOE updates
the introductory notes to both appendix D1 and appendix D2 to specify
that use of appendix D2 is required to demonstrate compliance with the
amended standards promulgated by the March 2024 Direct Final Rule,
which are codified at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(4). The amended introductory
note to appendix D2 also specifies that manufacturers may use appendix
D2 to certify compliance with the clothes dryer standards provided at
10 CFR 430.32(h)(4) prior to the applicable compliance date for those
standards.
In addition, the introductory note in appendix D2 specifies using
the value for the representative average number of clothes dryer cycles
in a year as defined in section 4.5.1(a) of that appendix until the
compliance date of any amended standards for these products; and using
a revised value of this number as defined in section 4.5.1(b) of that
appendix beginning on the compliance data of any amended standards for
these products. This document also updates the introductory note of
appendix D2 to specify explicitly the date ranges during which section
4.5.1(a) or 4.5.1(b) must be used, corresponding to the compliance date
of March 1, 2028 for the amended standards promulgated by the March
2024 Direct Final Rule.
IV. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is
likely to result from new or amended standards. (42 U.S.C.
629(p)(4)(A)(i) and (C)(i)(II); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also
directs the Attorney General of the United States (``Attorney
General'') to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of
competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit
such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication
of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent
of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To assist
the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE provided the
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') with copies of the March 2024 Direct
Final Rule, the corresponding NOPR, and the March 2024 Direct Final
Rule TSD for review. DOE has published DOJ's comments at the end of
this document.
In its letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that, based on its
review, the direct final rule standards for consumer clothes dryers are
unlikely to have significant adverse impact on competition.
V. Conclusion
In summary, based on the previous discussion, DOE has determined
that the comments received in response to the direct final rule for
amended energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers do
not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule.
As a result, the energy conservation standards set forth in the direct
final rule became effective on July 10, 2024. Compliance with these
standards is required on and after March 1, 2028.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Small businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September
30, 2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
[[Page 81305]]
the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal
Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on September 30, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, to read as set forth below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Revise the introductory Note to appendix D1 to subpart B of part 430
to read as follows:
Appendix D1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers
Note: The procedures in either this appendix or appendix D2 to
this subpart must be used to determine compliance with the energy
conservation standards for clothes dryers provided at Sec.
430.32(h)(3). Manufacturers must use a single appendix for all
representations, including certifications of compliance, and may not
use this appendix for certain representations and appendix D2 to
this subpart for other representations. The procedures in appendix
D2 to this subpart must be used to determine compliance with the
energy conservation standards for clothes dryers provided at Sec.
430.32(h)(4).
* * * * *
0
3. Revise the introductory Note to appendix D2 to subpart B of part 430
to read as follows:
Appendix D2 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers
Note: The procedures in either appendix D1 to this subpart or
this appendix must be used to determine compliance with the energy
conservation standards for clothes dryers provided at Sec.
430.32(h)(3). Manufacturers must use a single appendix for all
representations, including certifications of compliance, and may not
use appendix D1 to this subpart for certain representations and this
appendix for other representations. The procedures in this appendix
must be used to determine compliance with the energy conservation
standards for clothes dryers provided at Sec. 430.32(h)(4).
Manufacturers may use this appendix to certify compliance with the
clothes dryer standards provided at Sec. 430.32(h)(4) prior to the
applicable compliance date for those standards.
Per-cycle standby mode and off mode energy consumption in
section 4.5 of this appendix is calculated using the value for the
annual representative average number of clothes dryer cycles in a
year specified in section 4.5.1(a) of this appendix until March 1,
2028. Beginning on March 1, 2028, per-cycle standby mode and off
mode energy consumption in section 4.5 of this appendix is
calculated using the value for the annual representative average
number of clothes dryer cycles in a year specified in section
4.5.1(b) of this appendix.
* * * * *
Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendix A
May 16, 2024
Ami Grace-Tardy
Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy
Efficiency
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
[email protected]
Re: Consumer Clothes Dryers Energy Conservation Standards
DOE Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058
Dear Assistant General Counsel Grace-Tardy:
I am responding to your March 25, 2024, letter seeking the views
of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of
proposed energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers.
Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to make a
determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is
likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation
standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to
requests from other departments about the effect of a program on
competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for
the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). The Assistant Attorney
General for the Antitrust Division has authorized me, as the Policy
Director for the Antitrust Division, to provide the Antitrust
Division's views regarding the potential impact on competition of
proposed energy conservation standards on his behalf.
In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines
whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by
substantially limiting consumer choice, by placing certain
manufacturers at an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or by
inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of
particular products. A lessening of competition could result in
higher prices to manufacturers and consumers.
We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (89 Fed. Reg. 18244, March 12, 2024), and the
Direct Final Rule (89 Fed. Reg. 18164, March 12, 2024) and request
for comments and the related Technical Support Documents. We have
also reviewed public comments and reviewed the Docket. Based on this
review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers are unlikely to have a
significant adverse impact on competition.
Sincerely,
/s/
David G.B. Lawrence,
Policy Director.
[FR Doc. 2024-23257 Filed 10-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P