# Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2022-17900 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** August 23, 2022 - **Citation:** 87 FR 51734 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058] RIN 1904-AD99 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including consumer clothes dryers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) to periodically determine whether more stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”), DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results. DATES: Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on September 13, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, “Public Participation” for webinar registration information, participant instructions and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants. Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR no later than October 24, 2022. Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or before September 22, 2022. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058, by any of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: to ResClothesDryers2014STD0058@ee.doe.gov. Include docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058 in the subject line of the message. No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section IV of this document. Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal Register notices, 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. See section VII for information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy following the instructions at www.RegInfo.gov. EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Division at energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the “Subject” line of your email the title and Docket Number of this rulemaking notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bryan Berringer, 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. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. Email: Kathryn.McIntosh@hq.doe.gov. For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers B. Impact on Manufacturers C. National Benefits and Costs D. Conclusion II. Introduction A. Authority B. Background 1. Current Standards 2. Current Process C. Deviation From Appendix A III. General Discussion A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage B. Test Procedure C. Technological Feasibility 1. General 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels D. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings 2. Significance of Savings E. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) c. Energy Savings d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition f. Need for National Energy Conservation g. Other Factors 2. Rebuttable Presumption IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments A. Market and Technology Assessment 1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes 2. Technology Options B. Screening Analysis 1. Screened-Out Technologies a. Thermoelectric Heating, Electric Only b. Microwave, Electric Only c. Indirect Heating d. RF Drying, Electric Only e. Ultrasonic Drying, Electric Only 2. Remaining Technologies C. Engineering Analysis 1. Efficiency Analysis a. Baseline Efficiency Levels b. Incremental Efficiency Levels 2. Cost Analysis 3. Cost-Efficiency Results D. Markups Analysis E. Energy Use Analysis F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 1. Product Cost 2. Installation Cost 3. Annual Energy Consumption 4. Energy Prices 5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 6. Product Lifetime 7. Discount Rates 8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case 9. Payback Period Analysis G. Shipments Analysis H. National Impact Analysis 1. Product Efficiency Trends 2. National Energy Savings 3. Net Present Value Analysis I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 1. Overview 2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs a. Manufacturer Production Costs b. Shipments Projections c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 3. Manufacturer Interviews a. Heat Pump Technology b. Preservation of Electromechanical Controls c. Cost Increases and Component Shortages 4. Discussion of MIA Comments K. Emissions Analysis 1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts M. Utility Impact Analysis N. Employment Impact Analysis V. Analytical Results and Conclusions A. Trial Standard Levels B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings 1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results b. Direct Impacts on Employment c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 3. National Impact Analysis a. Significance of Energy Savings b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 7. Other Factors 8. Summary of Economic Impacts C. Conclusion 1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer Clothes Dryers Standards 2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Information Quality VII. Public Participation A. Participation in the Webinar B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution C. Conduct of the Public Meeting D. Submission of Comments E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule Title III, Part B 1 of EPCA, 2 established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include consumer clothes dryers, the subject of this proposed rulemaking. 1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 2 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021). Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers. The proposed standards, which are expressed as the combined energy factor as determined in accordance with the appendix D2 test procedure (“CEF D2 ”) in pounds per kilowatt-hour (“lb/kWh”)—a metric based on the clothes dryer test load weight in pounds (“lb”) divided by the sum of “active mode” and “inactive mode” per-cycle energy use in kilowatt-hours (“kWh”), are shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all consumer clothes dryers listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the date 3 years after the publication of the final rule for this proposed rulemaking. Table I.1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers as Measured Under Appendix D2 Product class CEF D2 (lb/kWh) 1. Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (“ft 3 ”) or greater capacity) 3.93 2. Electric, Compact (120 volts (“V”)) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 4.33 3. Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 3.57 4. Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity) 3.48 5. Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 2.02 6. Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 2.68 7. Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer 2.33 DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards, and is still considering them in this proposed rulemaking. DOE may also consider adopting more stringent-energy efficiency levels for some or all classes. However, DOE has tentatively concluded at this time that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits. A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of consumer clothes dryers, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”). 3 The average LCC savings are positive for all product classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of consumer clothes dryers, which is estimated to be 14 years (see section IV.F of this document). 3 The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards ( see section IV.F.8 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product ( see section IV.F.9 of this document). Table I.2—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Consumer Clothes Dryers Consumer clothes dryer class Average LCC savings (2020$) Simple payback period (years) Electric, Standard (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity) $578 0.55 Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 160 1.81 Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 192 1.62 Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity) 198 1.95 Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 25.2 5.07 Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 145 0.33 Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer 15.1 0.00 DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document. B. Impact on Manufacturers The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2022-2056). Using a real discount rate of 7.5 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers in the case without amended standards is $1,810.1 million in 2020$. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from -6.4 percent to -4.5 percent, which is approximately $115.6 million to $81.6 million. In order to bring products into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of $149.7 million. DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) are presented in section V.B.2 of this document. C. National Benefits and Costs 4 4 All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2020 dollars. DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for consumer clothes dryers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-2056) amount to 3.11 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads. 5 5 The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.2 of this document. The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for consumer clothes dryers ranges from $9.07 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $20.8 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for consumer clothes dryers purchased in 2027-2056. In addition, the proposed standards for consumer clothes dryers are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 116 million metric tons (“Mt”) 6 of carbon dioxide (“CO 2 ”), 42.6 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO 2 ”), 181 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO X ”), 883 thousand tons of methane (“CH 4 ”), 1.09 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N 2 O”), and 0.26 tons of mercury (“Hg”). 7 6 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO 2 are presented in short tons. 7 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2021 (“ AEO2021” ). AEO2021 represents current Federal and State legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for further discussion of AEO2021 assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions. DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases using four different estimates of the social cost of CO 2 (“SC-CO 2 ”), the social cost of methane (“SC-CH 4 ”), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SC-N 2 O”). Together these represent the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG). DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (“IWG”). 8 The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $5.42 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. 9 8 See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, Washington, DC (February 2021) (Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf ) (Last accessed March 17, 2022). 9 On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized greenhouse gas abatement benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. DOE also estimates health benefits from SO 2 and NO X emissions reductions. DOE estimates the present value of the health benefits would be $3.59 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $9.14 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO 2 and NO X ) PM 2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NO X ) ozone precursor health benefits but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions. Table I.3 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for consumer clothes dryers. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others. Table I.3—Summary of Monetized Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers [TSL 3] Billion 2020$ 3% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 22.2 Climate Benefits * 5.42 Health Benefits ** 9.14 Total Benefits † 36.8 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 1.36 Net Benefits 35.4 7% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 9.83 Climate Benefits * 5.42 Health Benefits ** 3.59 Total Benefits † 18.8 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 0.76 Net Benefits 18.1 Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer clothes dryers shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056. * Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO 2 ), methane (SC-CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (SC-N 2 O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate), as shown in Table V.36, Table V.38, and Table V.40. Together these represent the global social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. See section. IV.L of this document for more details. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized greenhouse gas abatement benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. ** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO X and SO 2 . DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO 2 and NO X ) PM 2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NO X ) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. † Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be monetized. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. See Table V.46 for net benefits using all four SC-GHG estimates. ‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. The benefits and costs of the proposed standards, for consumer clothes dryers sold in 2027-2056, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of the benefits of NO X and SO 2 emission reductions, all annualized. 10 10 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2021, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur ( e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2021. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the same present value. The national operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of consumer clothes dryers shipped in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of consumer clothes dryers shipped in 2027-2056. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section V.B.8 of this document. Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed standards are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced SO 2 and NO X emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is $85.7 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,111 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $320 million in climate benefits, and $406 million in health benefits (accounting for reduced NO X emissions and increased SO 2 emissions). In this case, the net benefit would amount to $1,752 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $80.7 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,313 million in reduced operating costs, $320 million in climate benefits, and $541 million in health benefits (accounting for reduced NO X emissions and increased SO 2 emissions). In this case, the net benefit would amount to $2,094 million per year. Table I.4—Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers [TSL 3] Million 2020$/year Primary estimate Low-net- benefits estimate High-net- benefits estimate 3% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 1,313 1,227 1,403 Climate Benefits * 320 311 327 Health Benefits ** 541 526 551 Total Benefits † 2,174 2,065 2,280 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 80.7 80.5 76.6 Net Benefits 2,094 1,984 2,204 7% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 1,111 1,050 1,178 Climate Benefits * 320 311 327 Health Benefits ** 406 395 413 Total Benefits † 1,837 1,757 1,917 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 85.7 85.3 82.4 Net Benefits 1,752 1,671 1,835 Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer clothes dryers shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056. * Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG ( see section IV.L of this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized greenhouse gas abatement benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. ** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO X and SO 2 . DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO 2 and NO X ) PM 2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NO X ) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. † Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. ‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document. D. Conclusion DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all product classes covered by this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the proposed standards. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO X and SO 2 reduction benefits, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for consumer clothes dryers is $85.7 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,111 million in reduced product operating costs, and $406 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $1,752 million per year. The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. 11 For example, some covered products and equipment have substantial energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis. 11 Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 3.11 quads, the equivalent of the electricity consumption of 78 million residential homes in one year. 12 DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support document (“TSD”). 12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Available at www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator. DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards, and is still considering them in this proposed rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this document and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part. II. Introduction The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for consumer clothes dryers. A. Authority EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include consumer clothes dryers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(8)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(3)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)). The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296). Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. ( See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)). Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for consumer clothes dryers appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix D1 and appendix D2 (“appendix D1” and “appendix D2”, respectively). 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 of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) (B)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 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 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 of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) EPCA also 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)) Also, 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)) Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more product classes. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for consumer clothes dryers address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended energy conservation standards that it may adopt. B. Background 1. Current Standards The most recent standards rulemaking for consumer clothes dryers was promulgated on April 21, 2011. Specifically, DOE published a direct final rule (the “2011 Direct Final Rule”) amending the energy conservation standard for consumer clothes dryers manufactured on and after January 1, 2015. 76 FR 22454 (Apr. 21, 2011). The energy conservation standards, as amended in the 2011 Direct Final Rule, represent the current standards and are in accordance with the appendix D1 test procedure as discussed in section III.B of this document. They are based on combined energy factor (“CEF”)—a metric that incorporates energy use in active mode, standby mode, and off mode. Compliance with the current standards was required as of January 1, 2015. 76 FR 52852 (Aug. 24, 2011). Even though DOE maintained the same energy-efficiency descriptor for both appendix D1 and appendix D2, DOE notes that the CEF values are not equivalent because of the extensive differences in test methods. To avoid potential confusion that would result from using the same efficiency descriptor for both test procedures as it relates to the standards discussed in this document, DOE is including a “D1” or “D2” subscript when referring to the appendix D1 CEF and appendix D2 CEF, respectively ( i.e., CEF D1 and CEF D2 ), in this document. 13 13 Note that while the current standards are based on CEF as determined in accordance with appendix D1, manufacturers are permitted to use the appendix D2 test procedure to comply with the current standards, as long as they use a single appendix for all representations. These current consumer clothes dryer standards as measured under appendix D1 are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(h) and are repeated in Table II.1. DOE has conducted the rulemaking analysis for this proposed rule under the appendix D2 test procedure because compliance will be required concurrent with amended energy conservation, if finalized. DOE discusses additional details about the engineering baseline in section IV.C.1 of this document. Table II.1—Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers as Measured Under Appendix D1 Product class CEF D1 (lbs/kWh) (A) Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity) 3.73 (B) Vented Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 3.61 (C) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 3.27 (D) Vented Gas 3.30 (E) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 2.55 (F) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer 2.08 On December 16, 2020, DOE published a final rule establishing a separate product class for consumer clothes dryers that offer cycle times for a “normal” cycle 14 of less than 30 minutes. 85 FR 81359 (Dec. 16, 2020) (“December 2020 Final Rule”). Because no such “short-cycle” consumer clothes dryers are currently on the market in the United States, DOE did not include analysis of this newly established product class in the preliminary TSD. 14 Section 3.3.2 of appendix D2 requires that the “normal” program shall be selected for the test cycle; for clothes dryers that do not have a “normal” program, the cycle recommended by the manufacturer for drying cotton or linen clothes shall be selected. While these short-cycle products had previously been subject to energy and water conservation standards, the December 2020 Final Rule stated that short-cycle product classes were no longer subject to any water or energy conservation standards. 85 FR 68723, 68742; 85 FR 81359, 81376. As a result, the short-cycle products were allowed to consume unlimited amounts of energy and water. As discussed in a NOPR subsequently published on August 11, 2021, DOE noted that in amending the standards for short-cycle products to allow for unlimited water and energy usage, DOE failed to consider whether the amended standards met the criteria in EPCA for issuing an amended standard. Notably, among other things, DOE did not determine, as required, that the amended standards for short-cycle products were designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 86 FR 43970, 43971. DOE has since published a final rule on January 19, 2022, which revoked the December 2020 Final Rule that improperly promulgated standards for this new product class and reinstated the prior product classes and applicable standards for these covered products. 87 FR 2673, 2686. Therefore, DOE did not include analysis of a short-cycle product class in the NOPR TSD. 2. Current Process DOE published a request for information (“RFI”) on March 27, 2015 (the “March 2015 RFI”) describing the approaches and methods DOE will use in evaluating potential amended standards for consumer clothes dryers. 80 FR 16309 (Mar. 27, 2015). In addition, the RFI solicited information from the public to help DOE determine whether amended standards for consumer clothes dryers would result in a significant amount of additional energy savings, and whether those standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified. Id. The March 2015 RFI is available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0001. DOE published a notice of public webinar and availability of the preliminary TSD on April 19, 2021 (“April 2021 Preliminary Analysis”) to collect data and information to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA. 86 FR 20327. DOE subsequently held a public webinar on May 26, 2021, to discuss and receive comments on the preliminary TSD. The preliminary TSD that presented the methodology and results of the preliminary analysis is available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0020. DOE received comments in response to the April 2021 Preliminary Analysis from the interested parties listed in Table II.2. Table II.2—April 2021 Preliminary Analysis Written Comments Commenter(s) Abbreviation Commenter type Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers AHAM Trade Association. Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense Council ASAP, NRDC Efficiency Organizations. California Investor-Owned Utilities California IOUs Utilities. GE Appliances, a Haier Company GEA Manufacturer. Whirlpool Corporation Whirlpool Manufacturer. Samsung Electronics America Samsung Manufacturer. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NEEA Efficiency Organization. Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law IPI Efficiency Organization. A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record. 15 15 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, page of that document). In response to the preliminary analysis, AHAM and Whirlpool stated that as laundry products are designed and used in pairs, DOE should harmonize its rulemaking processes such that the compliance dates for residential clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers are, if not identical, very close in time. According to AHAM and Whirlpool, this would greatly reduce burden on manufacturers as they work to design products to meet amended standards as well as on retailers and consumers as products are re-floored leading up to and on the compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 6; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 13) DOE appreciates the comments from AHAM and Whirlpool and recognizes the benefits of aligning the schedule for future amended standards for both products and may investigate harmonization of future rulemaking processes. Additionally, AHAM stated its strong opposition to Natural Resources Canada's (“NRCan”) proposal to make ENERGY STAR levels the minimum energy conservation standard for clothes dryers in Canada and strongly urged DOE to not only weigh in against NRCan's approach through the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council and under the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding on energy cooperation, but also to account for the burden of any misalignment in DOE's analysis. According to AHAM it is critical that amended standards are coordinated in both substance and timing in order to maintain a consistent U.S.-Canadian market for home appliances. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 9) DOE notes that review of efficiency standards efforts in other regions is discussed in chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD. DOE will continue to review and track these efforts as part of its analysis. C. Deviation From Appendix A Section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“appendix A”) specifies that, in those instances where the Department may find it necessary or appropriate to deviate from the procedures, interpretations or policies that are generally applicable to the development of energy conservation standards and test procedures, DOE will provide interested parties with notice of the deviation and an explanation. DOE finds that it is appropriate to deviate from its existing procedures by publishing this NOPR instead of releasing an additional framework document because such activity would be redundant due to the information previously obtained through the March 2015 RFI and the preliminary analysis. Additionally, DOE finds it necessary to deviate from its existing procedures by providing a 60-day comment period for this NOPR because interested parties received sufficient time to comment on earlier rulemaking documents that relied on many of the same analytical assumptions and approaches presented in this proposal. In accordance with section 3(a) of appendix A, DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states that if the Department determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. DOE is opting to deviate from this step by publishing a NOPR following the preliminary analysis without a framework document. A framework document is intended to introduce and summarize the various analyses DOE conducts during the rulemaking process and requests initial feedback from interested parties. As discussed, prior to the preliminary analysis and this NOPR, DOE published the March 2015 RFI, in which DOE identified and sought comment on the technical and economic analyses to be conducted in determining whether amended energy conservation standards would be justified. See 80 FR 16309. DOE provided a 45-day comment period for the RFI. Id. Comments received following publication of the March 2015 RFI assisted DOE in identifying and resolving issues related to the preliminary analyses. 86 FR 20327, 20330. Given the level of comments received to the March 2015 RFI, publication of a framework document would be largely redundant with the published RFI and preliminary analysis. As such, DOE is deviating from the procedures provided in appendix A and is not publishing a framework document prior to the publication of this NOPR. The Department has determined that it is appropriate to proceed with this proposal due to the information obtained through the March 2015 RFI and the preliminary analysis. Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE has opted to instead provide a 60-day comment period. As stated previously DOE requested comment in the March 2015 RFI on the technical and economic analyses and provided stakeholders a 45-day comment period. Additionally, DOE provided a 75-day comment period for the preliminary analysis. 86 FR 20327. DOE has relied on many of the same analytical assumptions and approaches as used in the preliminary assessment and has determined that a 60-day comment period in conjunction with the prior comment periods provides sufficient time for interested parties to review the proposed rule and develop comments. As such, DOE has determined that a 75-comment period is not necessary for this proposal and that a 60-day comment period is sufficient time for interested stakeholders to submit their comments on this document. III. General Discussion DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues raised by these commenters. A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify differing standards. In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE's review of the preliminary analysis and comments received in response to the preliminary analysis, in addition to results from an updated test sample, are discussed in more detail in section IV.A of this document. B. Test Procedure EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. On October 8, 2021, DOE published a final rule for the test procedure rulemaking (86 FR 56608) (the “October 2021 TP Final Rule”), in which it amended appendix D1 and appendix D2, both entitled “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers,” to provide additional detail in response to questions from manufacturers and test laboratories, including additional detail regarding the testing of “connected” models, dryness level selection, and the procedures for maintaining the required heat input rate for gas clothes dryers; additional detail for the test procedures for performing inactive and off mode power measurements; specifications for the final moisture content (“FMC”) required for testing automatic termination control dryers; specification of a narrower scale resolution for the weighing scale used to determine moisture content of test loads; and specification that the test load must be weighed within 5 minutes after a test cycle has terminated. In addition, DOE amended the test procedures to update the estimated number of annual use cycles for clothes dryers; provide further direction for additional provisions within the test procedures; specify rounding requirements for all reported values; apply consistent use of nomenclature and correct typographical errors; remove obsolete sections of the test procedures, including appendix D; and update the reference to the applicable industry test procedure to the version certified by the American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”). 86 FR 56608, 56610 DOE's current energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers are expressed in terms of CEF D1 . ( See 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3).) In response to the preliminary analysis, commenters requested that DOE finalize the test procedure rulemaking prior to proceeding with energy conservation standards rulemaking in order to capture any impacts a finalized test procedure would have on amended standards. (AHAM, No. 22 at pp. 7-8; AHAM, No. 23 at pp. 2-4; California IOUs, No. 26 at pp. 4-5; GEA, No. 28 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 30 at p. 8). At the time of the publication of the preliminary analysis, the October 2021 TP Final Rule had not yet published; however, DOE noted in the October 2021 TP Final Rule that the amendments adopted, other than the amendment to the number of annual use cycles in appendix D2, would not substantively alter the measured efficiency of consumer clothes dryers, and that the test procedures would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. The amendment to the number of annual use cycles specified for calculating per-cycle standby mode and off mode energy consumption would alter the measured energy efficiency of consumer clothes dryers when using appendix D2, but use of the amended value in appendix D2 is not required until such time as DOE were to amend the energy conservations standards accounting for such changes in the test procedure, should such amended energy conservation standards be adopted. 86 FR 56608, 56611. GEA, AHAM, and Samsung requested that DOE review the FMC requirement according to appendix D2, stating that the current 2-percent FMC requirement is too strict and not representative of consumer preference. (GEA, No. 22 at pp. 42-44; AHAM, No. 23 at p. 4; Samsung, No. 29 at pp. 2-3) AHAM questioned the degree of savings that can be achieved through more stringent standards, stating that the energy conservation standards would have less of an impact on consumer clothes dryer energy use than the FMC itself. As stated in the October 2021 TP Final Rule, the current 2-percent FMC requirement using the DOE test cloth was adopted as representative of approximately 5-percent FMC for “real-world” clothing, based on data submitted in a joint petition for rulemaking. 16 DOE determined in the August 2013 Final Rule that the specified 2-percent FMC using the DOE test load was representative of consumer expectations for dryness of clothing in field use. 78 FR 49608, 49620-49622, 49610-49611 (Aug. 14, 2013). DOE has not identified any systemic problems with any consumer clothes dryer types being able to achieve the required FMC of 2 percent or less, such that amendments to the test procedure would be warranted and therefore did not amend the FMC requirement for either appendix D1 or appendix D2 in the October 2021 TP Final Rule. 86 FR 56608, 56626. 16 The petition was submitted by AHAM, Whirlpool Corporation, General Electric Company, Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc., BSH, Alliance Laundry Systems, Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and DeLonghi, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Alliance to Save Energy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, and Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumer Law Center. See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0054, No. 3. ASAP, NRDC, and Samsung requested that DOE consider the testing of an additional smaller test load to supplement the current test load, stating a smaller test load could better represent consumer use and clothes dryer efficiency. (ASAP, NRDC, No. 25 at p. 1; Samsung, No. 29 at p. 3) As stated in the October 2021 TP Final Rule, with little expected change to the CEF D2 value when considering the energy consumption associated with a range of load sizes, DOE does not believe the additional testing would provide consumers with improved information that would change their purchasing decisions compared to the current test procedure. As such, any incremental benefit of testing with additional load sizes would be outweighed by the significant added burden that would be imposed by conducting such tests. For these reasons, DOE did not propose or adopt any amendments to the test procedure requiring additional test load sizes in the October 2021 TP Final Rule. 86 FR 56608, 56621. In response to the preliminary analysis, the California IOUs presented data suggesting that consumer clothes dryers that have identical ratings under appendix D1 can vary considerably when tested to appendix D2, and also stated that DOE's analysis in the preliminary TSD shows that baseline efficiency consumer clothes dryers tested under appendix D1 significantly underperform when tested under appendix D2. For these reasons, the California IOUs recommended that DOE use this rulemaking or the open test procedure rulemaking to phase out appendix D1 in favor of an updated appendix D2 test procedure. Samsung further supported DOE requiring the appendix D2 test procedure for manufacturers as the mandatory procedure for testing consumer clothes dryers. (California IOUs, No. 26 at p. 5) According to Samsung, appendix D2 has been recognized by stakeholders as truly representing how automatic termination control dryers are used by consumers, and manufacturers of ENERGY STAR-qualified consumer clothes dryers are familiar with, and have invested in, the test procedure in appendix D2, as it is already mandated for ENERGY STAR qualification. Furthermore, Samsung asserted that the appendix D1 test procedure was intended as a stopgap measure to test “sensor [automatic termination control] dryers” using “non-sensing” settings ( i.e., timer drying cycle) and does not represent how automatic termination clothes dryers are used by consumers as accurately as the appendix D2 test procedure. Samsung recommended that, since appendix D2 has been used for many years for ENERGY STAR qualification, appendix D1 be phased out now, with an appropriate adjustment to the underlying energy conservation standards to reflect the change in test method as described in EPCA. (Samsung, No. 29 at p. 2) As discussed in the October 2021 TP Final Rule, the version of appendix D2 adopted in that final rule would be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated energy conservation standards, with compliance with that version of appendix D2 required on the implementation date of updated standards. 86 FR 56608, 56635-56636 (Oct. 8, 2021). Accordingly, DOE notes that the preliminary analysis and this NOPR analysis are based on the appendix D2 test procedure, and therefore the proposed amended energy conservation standards in this document are also based on the appendix D2 test procedure. These proposed amendments are discussed in more detail in section IV.C of this document. C. Technological Feasibility 1. General In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A. After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for consumer clothes dryers, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD. 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for consumer clothes dryers, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.1 of this document and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. D. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to consumer clothes dryers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed standards (2027-2056). 17 The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of consumer clothes dryers purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy conservation standards. 17 Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period. DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet model to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential amended or new standards for consumer clothes dryers. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. 18 DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document. 18 The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). 2. Significance of Savings To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. 19 For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. 19 The numeric threshold for determining the significance of energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892). Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors. As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE is proposing to adopt TSL 3, which would save an estimated 3.11 quads of energy (FFC). DOE has initially determined that these energy savings are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). E. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking. a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers. For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard. b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect. For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document. c. Energy Savings Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.D of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings. d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking. e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the 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)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for information to send comments to DOJ. f. Need for National Energy Conservation DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document. DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of health benefits from certain emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document. AHAM stated its continued objection to DOE's use of the social cost of carbon and other monetization of emissions reductions benefits in its analysis of the factors EPCA requires DOE to balance to determine the appropriate standard. According to AHAM, while it may be acceptable for DOE to continue its current practice of examining the social cost of carbon and monetization of other emissions reductions benefits as informational so long as the underlying interagency analysis is transparent and vigorous, the monetization analysis should not impact the trial standards levels DOE selects as a new or amended standard. (AHAM, No. 23 at pp. 11-12) DOE's evaluation of whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified is guided by EPCA and also by OMB Circular A-4 (Sept. 17, 2003), which provides guidance to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis. As indicated above, DOE believes that avoiding negative impacts to human health and the wide range of impacts associated with climate change are key factors behind the need for energy conservation. 20 OMB Circular A-4 states: “Benefit-cost analysis is a primary tool used for regulatory analysis. Where all benefits and costs can be quantified and expressed in monetary units, benefit-cost analysis provides decision makers with a clear indication of the most efficient alternative, that is, the alternative that generates the largest net benefits to society.” (p. 2) Monetizing public health benefits of regulations is a long-standing practice in Federal regulatory analysis. To not consider such benefits when evaluating whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified would be contrary to both EPCA and OMB's guidance. In addition, on March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized greenhouse gas abatement benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. 20 As mentioned previously, following the preliminary injunction issued on February 11, 2022, in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.), DOE is currently not monetizing the costs of greenhouse gas emissions. g. Other Factors In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.” 2. Rebuttable Presumption As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F.9 of this document. IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to consumer clothes dryers. Separate sections address each component of DOE's analyses. DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058/. Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”) Annual Energy Outlook (“ AEO” ), a widely known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses. A. Market and Technology Assessment DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of consumer clothes dryers. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment. 1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes DOE defines “electric clothes dryer” under EPCA as a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum with forced air circulation. The heat source is electricity and the drum and blower(s) are driven by an electric motor(s). Similarly, DOE defines “gas clothes dryer” as a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum with forced air circulation. The heat source is gas and the drum and blower(s) are driven by an electric motor(s). (10 CFR 430.2) In response to the preliminary analysis, the California IOUs offered information on at least two manufacturers producing a dry-and-steam clothing cabinet and encouraged DOE to explore the market prevalence and potential growth of this equipment and what features represent an average use cycle. The California IOUs also suggested DOE consider the current clothes washers rulemaking or dehumidifiers rulemaking to provide guidance on how this product should be classified and, if appropriate, tested and rated. (California IOUs, No. 26 at p. 7) DOE may investigate this product in a future rulemaking; however, as this product does not meet the definition of a clothes dryer because it does not include a tumble-type drum, it was not included in this analysis. The current product classes, which were established by the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, are presented in Table IV.1. Table IV.1—Current Consumer Clothes Dryer Product Classes Vented dryers: Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (ft 3 ) or greater capacity). Electric, Compact (120 volts (V)) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity). Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity). Gas. Ventless dryers: Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity). Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer. Based on its review of products available on the market in the United States, DOE notes that at least six manufacturers currently offer a ventless clothes dryer with a drum capacity greater than 4.4 ft 3 . As a result, in the preliminary analysis, DOE analyzed an additional product class for ventless electric standard clothes dryers, with drum capacity larger than 4.4 ft 3 . In response to the preliminary analysis, the California IOUs requested that DOE investigate potential reporting errors within the Compliance Certification Database (“CCD”), as the California IOUs asserted that multiple products were incorrectly listed in the CCD as “vented” products while certified as “ventless” products in the ENERGY STAR product database and represented as “ventless” in manufacturer literature. (California IOUs, No. 26 at p. 4) DOE will work to investigate any classification errors within the CCD and requests comment on additional information regarding potential classification errors. In response to the preliminary analysis, ASAP, NRDC, the California IOUs, and NEEA requested that DOE review the efficiencies of models currently available on the market, specifically for the vented electric standard product class, stating that there are currently available models with higher efficiencies than the max-tech efficiency level considered in the preliminary analysis for this product class. (ASAP, NRDC, No. 25 at pp. 1-2; California IOUs, No. 26 at pp. 3-4; NEEA, No. 30 at pp. 10-11) Upon review of these higher efficiency models, DOE discovered that many of the higher efficiency electric standard clothes dryers on the market are ventless and employ heat pump technology and that there are no lower-efficiency ventless electric standard models associated with the less efficient condensing technology that is available with the ventless electric compact (240V) product class. Given that most heat pump designs at the standard size are inherently ventless and result in higher efficiencies, establishing a product class for ventless electric standard clothes dryers would essentially result in a separate product class for heat pump dryers and leave the vented electric standard product class with less efficient conventional resistive heating-element dryers. This would effectively restrict the efficiency of the vented electric standard product class, as higher efficiency technologies would be associated with a different product class. DOE received comments from AHAM and Whirlpool in response to the preliminary analysis stating that ventless electric clothes dryers, especially those implementing heat pump designs, have difficulty in meeting the 2-percent FMC requirement with Whirlpool stating that ventless electric clothes dryers result in longer cycle times than conventional vented clothes dryers. (AHAM, No. 23, p. 11; Whirlpool, No. 27 at pp. 13-17) Additionally, Whirlpool recommended that DOE consider the consumer utility of the differences that arise when consumer clothes dryers utilize heat pump technology and to establish a separate product class for heat pump clothes dryers (including hybrid heat pump clothes dryers). Whirlpool stated that differences in fabric care, drying time, heating and cooling energy impacts, lower drying temperatures, and technology used are all relevant performance-related features that distinguish heat pump and hybrid heat pump clothes dryers from all other consumer clothes dryer product classes, which may justify a higher standard than for other product types. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 17) DOE observes that all standard size ventless electric clothes dryers and compact ventless electric (120V) clothes dryers are rated according to appendix D2 and are ENERGY STAR-qualified, and therefore meet the 80-minute cycle time requirement to receive ENERGY STAR recognition. Additionally, DOE found no issue in its own testing of ventless electric clothes dryers inherent in the ventless electric clothes dryer design that supports the claims made by commenters regarding difficulty in meeting the FMC requirement and longer cycle times ( i.e., all ventless electric clothes dryers tested, including those utilizing either condensing or heat pump technology, were able to meet the 2-percent FMC requirement). As discussed, a rule prescribing an energy conservation standard must specify a level of energy use or efficiency higher or lower than that which applies (or would apply) for any group of covered products which have the same function or intended use, if the Secretary determines that covered products within such group have a capacity or other performance-related feature which justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B)) For standard size electric clothes dryers, the ventless feature does not justify a separate standard as compared to standard size electric clothes dryers that are vented. Standard size ventless electric clothes dryers can accommodate heat pump technology that results in improved efficiency similar to that for standard size vented electric clothes dryers. Therefore, upon further consideration, no product class distinction is proposed in this NOPR between ventless and vented electric standard clothes dryers, nor between heat pump and non-heat pump clothes dryers. Instead, DOE proposes an “electric standard” product class that would comprise both ventless and vented electric standard clothes dryers. Such a product class would not impact consumer utility, given that a consumer could install a ventless electric standard clothes dryer in the same locations as vented electric standard clothes dryers, and would not result in unacceptable drying performance or cycle time, as evidenced by the existing heat pump clothes dryers that are able to achieve the 2-percent FMC requirement within an 80-minute cycle time. In response to the preliminary analysis, the California IOUs requested that DOE consider an additional product class for ventless electric compact (120V) models, as such clothes dryers are currently available on the market. (California IOUs, No. 26 at p. 3) Upon further review, DOE found that, as for ventless electric standard clothes dryers, all currently available ventless electric compact (120V) clothes dryers utilize heat pump technology. For the same reasons as for electric standard clothes dryers ( i.e., to capture the energy savings associated with heat pump technology and to avoid restricting potential efficiency gains for vented electric clothes dryers), DOE proposes an “electric compact (120V)” product class comprising ventless and vented electric compact (120V) models. In light of the proposal to have single product classes containing all standard size electric clothes dryers and a single product class for all compact electric (120V) clothes dryers, DOE also considered whether to maintain the current separate product classes distinction based on venting for compact electric (240V) clothes dryers. DOE has previously determined that for compact electric clothes dryers, a ventless configuration is a consumer utility because these dryers provide for installations in space-constrained environments. 76 FR 22454, 22485 (Apr. 21, 2011). Based on the analysis presented in this NOPR, DOE has tentatively determined that the higher efficiencies for ventless compact (240V) clothes dryers would not be economically justified as they would be for vented compact (240V) clothes dryers. See Section IV.F of this document. Therefore, DOE tentatively determines that venting characteristics continue to justify a separate product class for compact (240V) clothes dryers. As discussed, vented electric clothes dryers are divided, in part, based on capacity such that there is a standard size product class (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity) and compact classes (capacity less than 4.4 ft 3 ). There is no similar class distinction for vented gas clothes dryers. Since the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE has identified at least one manufacturer of a vented gas clothes dryer with a drum less than 4.4 ft 3 . Such capacity units are subject to the energy conservation standard for vented gas clothes dryers. AHAM supported splitting the product classes for gas clothes dryers based on capacity consistent with the product classes for electric dryers. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 7) As discussed, DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. In evaluating potential technologies to improve the energy efficiency of vented gas clothes dryers, DOE tentatively has determined that vented gas clothes dryers with a capacity of less than 4.4 ft 3 perform in a way that is substantively different than vented gas clothes dryers that are 4.4 ft 3 or greater in capacity. For example, DOE has observed that compact vented gas clothes dryers generally perform at a lower efficiency than standard size vented gas clothes dryers, likely due to the chassis size restrictions, and due to that inherent difference, DOE believes that a separate product class is warranted. Furthermore, creating a new product class for vented gas clothes dryers with a capacity of less than 4.4 ft 3 would ensure that efficiency levels and potential amended standards could better and more directly assess the impact of design option implementations for a given product configuration. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that a separate product class and standard for vented gas compact clothes dryers ( i.e., with a capacity less than 4.4 ft 3 ) are justified for similar reasons as DOE determined for vented electric compact clothes dryers. See 76 FR 22404, 22485 (Apr. 21, 2011). As a result, DOE analyzed separate product classes for vented gas standard and vented gas compact clothes dryers. In sum, DOE proposes the consumer clothes dryer product classes listed in Table IV.2 in this NOPR, which expand the scope of certain product classes to include both vented and ventless designs, and include an additional product class for compact vented gas dryers. Table IV.2—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Consumer Clothes Dryer Product Classes Product Classes: 1. Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (ft 3 ) or greater capacity). 2. Electric, Compact (120 volts (V)) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity). 3. Vented Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity). 4. Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity). 5. Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity). 6. Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity). 7. Ventless Electric, Combination Washer/Dryer. 2. Technology Options In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified 16 technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of consumer clothes dryers, as measured by the DOE test procedure. DOE continues to consider these technology options in this NOPR analysis. These technology options can be broadly grouped into five main categories: dryer control or drum upgrades, methods of exhaust heat recovery (for vented models only), heat generation options, improvements to components, and options to reduce standby power. Table IV.3—Preliminary Analysis: Technology Options for Consumer Clothes Dryers Dryer Control or Drum Upgrades: Improved termination. Increased insulation. Modified operating conditions. Improved air circulation. Improved drum design. Methods of Exhaust Heat Recovery (Vented Models Only): Recycle exhaust heat. Inlet air preheat. Inlet air preheat, condensing mode. Heat Generation Options: Heat pump, electric only. Thermoelectric heating, electric only. Microwave, electric only. Modulating heat. Indirect heating. Component Improvements: Improved motor efficiency. Improved fan efficiency. Standby Power Improvements: Transformerless power supply with auto-powerdown. DOE notes that two recently developed consumer clothes dryer technologies were not included as part of the preliminary analysis: long wavelength radio frequency (“RF”) drying and ultrasonic drying. Despite the potential benefits of RF and ultrasonic clothes drying, however, both technologies are currently under patent or have received a provisional patent. Any energy conservation standard that relied on either of these technologies would unfairly advantage the manufacturer or individual holder of the patent, and thus DOE did not consider them as technology options for the preliminary analysis. Because these technologies are technologically feasible, however, DOE proposes in this NOPR to retain these as technology options in the technology assessment, noting one of the criteria for screening technology options for use in further analyses is whether a technology represents a unique proprietary pathway ( see section IV.B of this document and chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD). DOE notes that the current energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers would not prohibit the use of these technologies. DOE received several comments in response to the technologies proposed in the preliminary analysis to be analyzed for consumer clothes dryers. Whirlpool suggested that reduced drum seal leakage be considered as a technology option. Additionally, Whirlpool stated that approaches to reduce standby power may not be consumer-friendly solutions that manufacturers would readily implement. Whirlpool suggested that delaying the drum light turning on after opening the door or delaying the start of a cycle after powering on the unit would frustrate consumers, as they typically expect appliances to turn on when action is taken such as pressing the power button or opening the door. Whirlpool also suggested an off position on the control dial but stated that intellectual property may exist around this and may result in higher costs. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 17) DOE is not aware of data at this time to characterize the impacts reduced drum seal leakage may have on efficiency and requests information on efficiency impacts of this technology. In addition, the strategies that Whirlpool suggested to reduce energy use in standby mode, including delaying the activation of the drum light after a door opening or delaying the start of the cycle after powering on the unit, would not be measured by appendix D2. Furthermore, although appendix D2 incorporates measures of energy use in both off mode and inactive (standby) mode, DOE does not have information to indicate the relative power consumption in each of these modes for any consumer clothes dryers on the market which may have an off mode position on the controls, which would provide an estimate of the reduction in combined low-power mode energy use. For these reasons, at this time, DOE is not proposing to include these technology options in its analysis. NEEA stated that manufacturers in the current consumer clothes dryer market utilize an “eco mode” as a lower heat/longer drying time strategy to achieve a given efficiency. NEEA asserted that the efficiency of a consumer clothes dryer increases substantially with lower heat and longer drying time, citing laboratory testing by the California IOUs that quantified this effect by alternating periods of heat with no heat during a cycle. According to the results of this work, NEEA claimed, the average efficiency of consumer clothes dryers with these modified controls increased 30 percent compared to their default settings used for appendix D2 testing, and drying time increased 140 percent. According to NEEA, a no-heat cycle took 4 hours to complete but achieved a CEF D2 value of 7.0. NEEA stated that with the energy savings associated with this strategy, as well as the relatively low cost associated with the redesign of the control panel to enable additional heater/burner algorithms, manufacturers have a solid incentive to extensively utilize eco mode as the sole redesign strategy to enable their models to meet DOE's forthcoming mandatory standard. NEEA warned that the longer drying times associated with these energy saving programs are unlikely to be acceptable to many consumers in some circumstances ( e.g., serial dryer loads and other time-sensitive loads), which could potentially result in consumers regularly disabling these eco modes and may therefore significantly reduce the energy savings of dryers in everyday use relative to expectations created by the current appendix D2 test procedure. Therefore, NEEA requested that DOE require the sole use of appendix D2 for certification purposes as well as the required reporting of cycle times in order to mitigate against significant reductions in actual real-world energy savings associated with a low heat/long drying time eco mode strategy. According to NEEA, cycle time reporting would help moderate inordinately long cycle times during the D2 test, enable consumers and other stakeholders to consider trade-offs between the efficiency and cycle time for a given model, and provide data to possibly consider more sophisticated approaches to cycle time in subsequent standard updates. (NEEA, No. 30 at pp. 1-7) DOE recognizes that some consumer clothes dryers are currently certified using appendix D2, and their controls may include an “eco mode” or “energy saver mode,” which typically reduce the temperature used in the cycle at the expense of increasing the drying time. However, appendix D2 requires, for automatic termination control dryers, that the “normal” program be selected for the energy test cycle. In the event that the automatic termination control dryer does not have a “normal” program, the cycle recommended by the manufacturer for drying cotton or linen clothing is selected. Where the drying temperature setting can be chosen independently of the program (as would be the case if “eco mode” or “energy saver mode” were an optional setting that could be selected for the “normal” program), the drying temperature must be set to the maximum. Section 3.3.2, appendix D2. For timer dryers, the maximum temperature setting is selected for the energy test cycle. Section 3.3.1, appendix D2. Therefore, an available “eco mode” or “energy saver mode” would not be included in the energy test cycle, as they would not produce a measure of energy use during a representative cycle. For this reason, DOE did not consider such energy saving modes as a technology option in this NOPR. NEEA further encouraged DOE to consider the following technology options: (1) coupled blower modulation with the multi-stage burner/heater efficiency level, (2) cabinet insulation, (3) backward curved fan blades, and (4) recuperation heat recovery in vented heat pump clothes dryers associated with a PNNL study. (NEEA, No. 30 at pp. 12-13) DOE notes that blower modulation is already coupled with the multi-stage burner/heater efficiency level for both electric and gas consumer clothes dryers, although this was not previously stated in chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD. DOE has not observed the technology option of cabinet insulation in clothes dryers used in this analysis, and therefore does not currently have sufficient information to determine the potential efficiency impacts associated with the suggested technology options, however, DOE notes that with the inherent risk of fires that may occur during operation of a consumer clothes dryer, any insulation used within the cabinet space would likely need to be fire retardant in order to satisfy the fire containment requirements according to the UL 2158 safety standard. While insulation of the dryer cabinet space would likely lead to potential energy savings, DOE expects that the insulation could lead to an increased internal cabinet temperature and may potentially lead to the degradation of other components within the clothes dryer assembly. DOE therefore requests information that would be beneficial in determining any impacts to efficiency or performance as a result of implementing each of the technology options mentioned. DOE notes that improvements to fan blades would be captured in the analyzed technology options as improved fan efficiency, however the efficiency improvements specified by NEEA refer to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) research and do not specifically refer to efficiency improvements in consumer clothes dryers. Therefore, until DOE has sufficient information on efficiency improvements associated with fan designs, the proposed incremental efficiency levels will not be associated with improved fan efficiency. Regarding the recuperation heat recovery technology option, DOE notes that this technology is already considered in this analysis referred to as the inlet-air preheat design option. Given the proposed change to the product class structure regarding the combination of vented and ventless clothes dryers in the standard and compact (120V) categories, this technology is now considered in the proposed design options for vented consumer clothes dryers, however given that DOE has not observed inlet-air preheat technology in consumer clothes dryers on the market, specifically heat pump consumer clothes dryers, this technology has not been considered at the max-tech level associated with heat pump technology. Table IV.4 lists the technology options identified for consumer clothes dryers in this NOPR. With the inclusion of RF and ultrasonic drying technologies in the list of technology options in the NOPR, DOE has renamed the grouping for “heat generation options” as “moisture removal options.” See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the analyzed technologies. Table IV.4—Technology Options for Consumer Clothes Dryers Dryer Control or Drum Upgrades: Improved termination. Increased insulation. Modified operating conditions. Improved air circulation. Improved drum design. Methods of Exhaust Heat Recovery (Vented Models Only): Recycle exhaust heat. Inlet air preheat. Inlet air preheat, condensing mode. Moisture Removal Options: Heat pump, electric only. Thermoelectric heating, electric only. Microwave, electric only. Modulating heat. Indirect heating. RF drying, electric only. Ultrasonic drying, electric only. Component Improvements: Improved motor efficiency. Improved fan efficiency. Standby Power Improvements: Transformerless power supply with auto-powerdown. B. Screening Analysis DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking: (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not be considered further. (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further. (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product for significant subgroups of consumers or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further. (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further. (5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(b)(3) and 7(b). In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in the following sections. The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria. 1. Screened-Out Technologies AHAM requested that DOE consider the effects that different technology options may have on fabric care, specifically the impact longer drying cycles may have on fabric. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 10) While certain technology options may be associated with an increase in cycle times ( e.g., modified operating conditions (reduced drying temperatures) and heat pump technology), DOE notes that AHAM did not provide, nor is DOE aware of, information correlating fabric care directly to cycle time. In addition, if longer cycle times are accompanied by lower drying temperatures, it is uncertain whether the net impact on fabric care is positive or negative, and how this result would vary based on fabric type. Therefore, DOE did not screen out any technology options solely on the basis of any fabric care considerations due to cycle time. However, DOE requests comment on any potential impacts that different technology options, including any that may impact cycle times, have on fabric care. a. Thermoelectric Heating, Electric Only DOE notes that Oak Ridge National Laboratory (“ORNL”) is still researching thermoelectric heating clothes dryers. While ORNL's test results of a preliminary prototype have shown the potential for improved efficiency, ORNL indicated that the initial prototype design produced longer-than-desired drying times due to direct-contact heat transfer limitations via the drum surface. ORNL has subsequently developed another prototype which added pumped secondary water loops that transferred heat from the thermoelectric modules to the process air via air-to-water heat exchangers to further improve efficiency and minimize cycle length. ORNL's testing indicated efficiency and cycle times for this prototype that are approximately equivalent to those of vapor compression heat pump clothes dryers. 21 Because the research for such a thermoelectric heating clothes dryer that produces energy savings and meets consumer expectations for drying cycle time is still in the prototype stage, DOE determined that this technology option would not be practicable to manufacture, install, and service on a scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of any new or amended consumer clothes dryer standards, and did not be consider it for further analysis. 21 Patel, V., Boudreaux, P., and Gluesenkamp, K. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Validated Model of a Thermoelectric Heat Pump Clothes Dryer Using Secondary Pumped Loops. Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 184, February 5, 2021. b. Microwave, Electric Only Due to the large energy savings associated with microwave drying, this technology was the subject of a multi-year development effort at the Electric Power Research Institute (“EPRI”) in the mid-1990s; 22 and at least one major manufacturer, Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”), developed a countertop-scale version of such a product as recently as 2002, 23 but to date this technology has not been successfully commercialized. 22 S. Ashley. 1998. “Energy-Efficient Appliances”, Mechanical Engineering Magazine, March, 1998, pp. 94-97. 23 E. Spagat. 2002. “Whirlpool Goes Portable to Sell Dryers to Gen Y”, Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2002. Significant technical and safety issues are introduced by the potential arcing from metallic objects in the fabric load, including zippers, buttons, or “stray” items such as coins. While efforts have been made to mitigate the conditions that are favorable to arcing, or to detect incipient arcing and terminate the cycle, the possibility of fabric damage cannot be completely eliminated. 24 In addition to consumer utility impacts, these conditions can also pose a safety hazard. For these reasons, microwave drying was not considered further for analysis. 24 J.F. Gerling. 2003. “Microwave Clothes Drying—Technical Solutions to Fundamental Challenges”, Appliance Magazine, April, 2003, p. 120. c. Indirect Heating Indirect heating would be viable only in residences that use a hydronic heating system. Also, in order to derive clothes dryer heat energy from the home's heating system, significant plumbing work would be required to circulate heated water through a heat exchanger in the clothes dryer. Therefore, this technology option does not meet the criterion of practicability to install on a scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of any new standard and will not be considered for further analysis. d. RF Drying, Electric Only CoolDry, LLC (“CoolDry”), developed an RF clothes dryer prototype, claiming an efficiency of 90 percent, compared to 50 percent for conventional clothes dryers. 25 CoolDry states that its RF drying technology operates at lower temperatures than do conventional clothes dryers and, because the transfer of energy to clothes is not dependent on convective heat transfer, the RF clothes dryer requires less tumbling and subsequently consumes less energy for drum rotation than a conventional clothes dryer. Because this technology was in the prototype stage at the time it was initially considered and the company is no longer in business and thus there is likely no longer research and development ongoing, DOE determined that this technology option would not be practicable to manufacture, install, and service on a scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of any new or amended consumer clothes dryer standards, and did not be consider it for further analysis. 25 CoolDry does not specify the metric or test method used to determine the efficiency of its prototype. More information is available at: http://www.cooldryrf.com/. e. Ultrasonic Drying, Electric Only Researchers at ORNL have developed an ultrasonic drying prototype that uses piezoelectric transducers to separate water from clothes through water cavitation produced by ultrasonic vibrations. According to their research, the energy imparted to the water must overcome surface tension in order to break the water into droplets, but this energy is substantially less than the latent heat of vaporization of water, which is the primary thermodynamic barrier for conventional evaporation drying. The ORNL researchers anticipate that ultrasonic drying technology will result in an energy factor (“EF”) 26 of greater than 10 and a drying time of less than 20 minutes. 27 Because this technology is still in the prototype stage, DOE determined that this technology option would not be practicable to manufacture, install, and service on a scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of any new or amended consumer clothes dryer standards, and did not be consider it for further analysis. 26 EF only incorporates active mode energy use and not standby and off mode energy use. 27 Momen, A. Ultrasonic Clothes Dryer: 2016 Building Technologies Office Peer Review. 2016. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in partnership with the Univers [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2022-17900. Public record. Not legal advice.