Federal Energy Efficiency Standards Program: Background and Recent Developments

Legal Sidebari

Federal Energy Efficiency Standards Program:

Background and Recent Developments

September 25, 2025

The federal Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, a national program setting minimum efficiency

standards for a variety of consumer and industrial products, was first authorized as a voluntary program in

1975 by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). Congress authorized and directed binding

standards imposing limits on product electricity consumption and water use in subsequent amendments to

that legislation. EPCA grants the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) broad authority to administer the

program for “covered products” for which efficiency standards are set in statute, to adopt and amend new

efficiency standards for other listed covered products through the administrative process, and to adopt

new standards to cover certain consumer products not explicitly named in EPCA. DOE is also authorized

to amend the standards, although EPCA prohibits “backsliding” amendments that would reduce

efficiency. EPCA also grants DOE authority to enforce these standards through civil penalties.

On May 12, 2025, DOE announced that it would be “proposing the elimination or reduction of 47

regulations,” which is to be accomplished through a series of regulatory actions. DOE’s press release

cited Executive Order 14270, which directs federal agencies to amend their regulations to add conditional

“sunset” provisions to certain regulatory requirements and standards and to treat those requirements and

standards as no longer effective as of the sunset date to the extent permissible by law as the impetus for

the regulatory actions. While several of these actions related to testing processes and other administrative

processes, the majority of the proposed changes sought to alter the efficiency program’s standards for

covered products.

EPCA Section 325: Framework for Federal Energy Efficiency Standards

Section 325 of EPCA seeks to both “provide federal energy conservation standards applicable to covered

products” and “authorize the Secretary to prescribe amended or new energy conservation standards for

each type (or class) of covered product.” Appliances and other consumer products become “covered

products” subject to the program in one of two ways. Sections 325(b)–(k) explicitly name—and in many

cases provide initial efficiency standards for—a number of covered products or categories of products

such as refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, dishwashers, and lamps. These consumer products are

designated as “covered products” in Section 322 of the Act. For a number of additional products not listed

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

LSB11372

CRS Legal Sidebar

Prepared for Members and

Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service

2

in Section 322 of the Act, Sections 325(u)–(ff) and Section 325(hh) either set initial standards or instruct

DOE to set the standard.

Other products are again not explicitly named in EPCA, but DOE has subsequently designated them as

covered products pursuant to administrative authority under EPCA. Section 322(b) of EPCA authorizes

the Secretary of Energy to “classify a type of consumer product as a covered product if he or she

determines that “the designation is necessary or appropriate” and that “the average annual per-household

energy use by products of that type is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours (or its Btu equivalent) per

year.” Section 325(l) confirms the Secretary’s authority to prescribe energy conservation standards for

these covered products and provides that new or amended standards for products designated pursuant to

this authority “shall not apply to products manufactured within five years after the publication of a final

rule establishing such standard.”

EPCA authorizes—and in some instances obliges—DOE to amend efficiency standards for all covered

products. Where EPCA explicitly names a covered product, it generally also includes language directing

DOE to update the efficiency standards for that product on a regular basis. For example, Section 325(c)

directs the Secretary to promulgate efficiency standards for “room air conditioners” and provides an openended authority to promulgate amendments to those standards “no later than five years after the date of

publication of the previous final rule.” EPCA also includes a broader mandate to update the efficiency

standards for all covered products regardless of how they were designated. Under Section 325(m), within

six years of publication of any final rule establishing or amending existing standards, the Secretary must

publish either (1) a new proposed rulemaking amending the existing standards for any covered product or

(2) a notice of determination that the existing standards need not be amended. If DOE determines that

certain standards do not need amendment, it must make and publish another determination regarding

those standards within three years of the previous decision. DOE is free to update standards for products

more frequently than every six years pursuant to this authority. Note, however, that EPCA limits this

authority with respect to many energy efficiency standards in a provision commonly known as the “antibacksliding rule,” discussed further below. Section 325(o) provides that DOE may not change efficiency

standards in a way that would either increase the “maximum allowable energy use” or the “minimum

required energy efficiency” of a product.

Section 336(b) of EPCA provides for judicial review of energy efficiency standards issued under Section

325 of the statute. Under Section 336(b)(1), “[a]ny person who will be adversely affected” by such a

standard may file a petition for review in federal appellate court. Section 336(b)(2) incorporates the

process for judicial review and the remedies available pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act,

which directs reviewing courts to set aside final agency actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” or “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or

limitations.”

May 2025 Announcement and Subsequent Administrative Activity

As noted above, on May 12, 2025, DOE announced that it would be “proposing the elimination or

reduction of 47 regulations,” to be accomplished through a series of regulatory actions. The press release

did not cite DOE’s authority under EPCA as the impetus for the regulatory actions but instead cited

Executive Order 14270, a 2025 order issued by President Trump directing all federal agencies to amend

regulations to add conditional “sunset” provisions to certain regulatory requirements and standards. The

executive order also directed agencies to treat those requirements and standards as no longer effective as

of the sunset date to the extent permissible by law. The “47 regulations” in the press release included a

number of measures related to other administrative duties of DOE, in addition to the efforts to amend

existing program efficiency standards (some of which were initiated prior to the May 12 announcement).

For some products, DOE is proposing withdrawal of an amended standard or design requirement,

returning the standard for the product to the standard found in the statute. For other products, DOE is

Congressional Research Service

3

proposing or, in one instance, finalizing removal of the “covered product” designation and thus all

requirements of the efficiency program. Other proposals would change efficiency testing procedures.

These proposed rulemakings promulgated by DOE in the wake of its May 12 announcement are ongoing.

In most instances the period for public comment has closed, but DOE has not published any further

documentation of the rulemaking process.

The “Anti-Backsliding Rule”

Most of these recent regulatory changes to the efficiency program are not final, and there do not appear to

be any litigation challenges as of yet. EPCA’s judicial review provision specifies that petitions for review

must be filed within 60 days after a rule is issued. In the event one or more lawsuits are filed, the “antibacksliding” rule found in Section 325(o) of EPCA may present a challenge for the DOE efficiency

rulemakings described above. Section 325(o) provides that DOE may not change efficiency standards in a

way that would either increase the maximum allowable energy or water use or the “minimum required

energy efficiency” of a product.

In the proceedings discussed above, DOE makes a number of different claims as to why these proposed

amendments to efficiency standards would not violate the anti-backsliding rule of Section 325(o) of

EPCA. For example, in the proposed amendments to the standards for external power supplies, DOE

argues that “even if a rescission is an ‘amended standard,’ the anti-backsliding provision only prevents

DOE from setting standards below the statutory maximum or minimum,” and thus the agency can loosen

standards previously tightened through regulatory action. None of the proposed rules would lower

efficiency standards below statutorily mandated levels. DOE also argues that the anti-backsliding rule

applies only to products designated as “covered products” in statute and that the rule does not apply at all

to certain water use standards.

There is no further explanation of these arguments in the proposed rules, and there is little federal case

law interpreting the anti-backsliding rule. The existing precedent, however, seems to conflict with some

aspects of DOE’s narrow reading of the rule. For example, in Natural Resources Defense Council v.

Abraham, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that

once new standards are published, DOE has discharged its obligation to prescribe an amended

standard or announce its decision not to under the provisions requiring periodic review.

Furthermore, once an efficiency standard is published, regardless of the fact that manufacturers have

a number of years to bring themselves into compliance, it becomes the “establish[ed]” standard in

the statute’s own language, or, in other terms, the “required” minimum efficiency standard....

Consequently, and in harmony with this Congressional regulatory scheme, Section 325(o)(1) must

be read to restrict DOE’s subsequent discretionary ability to weaken that standard at any point

thereafter.

Other DOE arguments may find support in legal precedent. In Louisiana v. U.S. Department of Energy,

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidated a DOE final rule regarding classification of

certain dishwashers and laundry machines as “arbitrary and capricious.” In doing so, the court noted that

it seems obvious that the statute gave DOE power to regulate energy use for energy-using appliances

(like dishwashers and washing machines) or water use for non-energy-using appliances (like

showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals). No part of that text indicates Congress gave DOE

power to regulate water use for energy-using appliances (like dishwashers and washing machines).

The EPCA’s history supports this reading. Until 1992, DOE had zero power to regulate water use

by any product. In that year, Congress added “water use” to DOE’s statutory mandate—but only as

to showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals.... That further suggests that Congress never gave

DOE power to regulate water use by other products like dishwashers or laundry appliances.

Congressional Research Service

4

This narrow interpretation of DOE’s authority to regulate water use in the efficiency program may

support DOE’s efforts to roll back or rescind water use standards.

Considerations for Congress

Members can legislate to affirm or supersede the proposed changes to the program’s efficiency standards.

Amending the language of EPCA to clarify the scope of the program and to limit the applicability of the

anti-backsliding rule could make it more difficult to challenge the proposed rules should they be finalized.

Congress is also free to reduce or eliminate potential judicial challenges to the program. Legislation could

also clarify or enhance the applicability of the anti-backsliding rule or confirm or reject the validity of

water use requirements beyond the products already named in statute.

A number of bills have been introduced in the 119th Congress to amend aspects of the Program, including

H.R. 4626 (limiting DOE authority to make new or amended standards for products based on technical

and economic factors); H.R. 3341(repealing efficiency standards for general service fluorescent lamps,

general service incandescent lamps, and incandescent reflector lamps); and multiple joint resolutions

intended to disapprove recently promulgated energy efficiency standards pursuant to the authority of the

Congressional Review Act.

Acknowledgement

CRS Analyst Martin Offutt contributed to this product.

Author Information

Adam Vann

Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff

to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of

Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of

information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.

CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United

States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,

as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the

permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB11372 · VERSION 1 · NEW