# Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dehumidifiers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2023-24106 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** November 6, 2023 - **Citation:** 88 FR 76510 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [EERE-2019-BT-STD-0043] RIN 1904-AE61 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dehumidifiers 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 dehumidifiers. 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 dehumidifiers, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results. DATES: Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR no later than January 5, 2024. Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Thursday, December 14, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII of this document, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants. Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or before December 6, 2023. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0043. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0043, by any of the following methods: Email: Dehumidifiers2019STD0043@ee.doe.gov. Include docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0043 in the subject line of the message. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (“CD”), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. 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-2019-BT-STD-0043. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.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 proposed rulemaking. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: Peter.Cochran@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. History of Standards Rulemaking for Dehumidifiers III. General Discussion A. 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. Product Classes 2. Technology Options a. Improved Compressor Efficiency b. Washable Air Filters c. Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers d. Alternative Refrigerants e. Low-Standby-Loss Electronic Controls f. Multi-Circuited Evaporator and Secondary Condenser Coils B. Screening Analysis 1. Screened-Out Technologies 2. Remaining Technologies C. Engineering Analysis 1. Efficiency Analysis a. Baseline Efficiency b. Higher 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. Capital and Product Conversion Costs d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 3. Manufacturer Interviews a. Increases in Chassis Size b. Refrigerant Regulation 4. Discussion of MIA Comments K. Emissions Analysis 1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions a. Social Cost of Carbon b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide 2. Monetization of Other 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 Dehumidifier 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 1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered 2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated 4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities 5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations 6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 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. Attendance at the Public Meeting 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 The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA 2 established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include dehumidifiers, the subject of this proposed rulemaking. 1 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA. 2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 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 analyzed the benefits and burdens of four trial standard levels (“TSLs”) for dehumidifiers. The TSLs and their associated benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE has tentatively determined that TSL 3 represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. The proposed standards, which are expressed in Integrated Energy Factor (“IEF”), or the volume of water in liters (“L”) removed by a kilowatt hour (“kWh”) of energy, are shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all dehumidifiers 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 Dehumidifiers Portable dehumidifier product capacity (pints/day) Minimum integrated energy factor (L/kWh) 25.00 or less 1.70 25.01-50.00 2.01 50.01 or more 3.10 Whole-home dehumidifier product case volume (cubic feet): 8.0 or less 2.22 More than 8.0 3.81 A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of dehumidifiers, 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 dehumidifiers, which is estimated to be 10 years for portable dehumidifiers and 12 years for whole-home dehumidifiers (see section IV.F.6 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.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document). Table I.2—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Dehumidifiers Product class Average LCC savings (2022$) Simple payback period (years) Portable dehumidifiers, ≤25.00 pints/day $42 0.9 Portable dehumidifiers, 25.01-50.00 pints/day 81 0.6 Portable dehumidifiers, >50.00 pints per day 31 4.8 Whole-home dehumidifiers, ≤8.0 cubic feet case volume 56 6.4 Whole-home dehumidifiers, >8.0 cubic feet case volume 146 5.7 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 4 4 All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022 dollars. 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 (2023-2057). Using a real discount rate of 8.4 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of dehumidifiers in the case without amended standards is $158.3 million. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from −3.3 percent to −2.1 percent, which is approximately −$5.2 million to −$3.3 million. In order to bring products into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of $6.9 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 DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for dehumidifiers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2028-2057) amount to 0.33 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads. 5 This represents a savings of 5.8 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”). 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 dehumidifiers ranges from $1.26 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $2.61 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 dehumidifiers purchased from 2028 through 2057. In addition, the proposed standards for dehumidifiers 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 6.94 million metric tons (“Mt”) 6 of carbon dioxide (“CO 2 ”), 1.76 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO 2 ”), 11.81 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO X ”), 51.94 thousand tons of methane (“CH 4 ”), 0.06 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N 2 O”), and 0.01 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 2023 ( “AEO2023” ). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022, including the Inflation Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this document for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that affect air pollutant emissions. DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (“GHG”) using four different estimates of the social cost (“SC”) 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 GHG (“SC-GHG”). DOE used interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit per ton of GHG avoided) developed by the 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 $0.40 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. 8 To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. (“February 2021 SC-GHG TSD”). www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO 2 and NO X emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency, 9 as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $0.33 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.74 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. 10 DOE is currently only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) concentrations from two precursors (SO 2 and NO X ), and from changes in ambient ozone from one precursor (for NO X ), but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions. 9 U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly Emitted PM 2.5 , PM 2.5 Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors. 10 DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions reductions resulting from the considered trial standard levels (“TSLs”) for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866. Table I.3 summarizes the monetized economic benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for dehumidifiers. 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 Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Dehumidifiers [Trial Standard Level (“TSL”) 3] Billion ($2022) 3% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 2.75 Climate Benefits * 0.40 Health Benefits ** 0.74 Total Benefits † 3.89 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 0.14 Net Benefits 3.75 Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡ (0.005)-(0.003) 7% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 1.34 Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) 0.40 Health Benefits ** 0.33 Total Benefits † 2.07 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 0.08 Net Benefits 1.99 Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡ (0.005)-(0.003) Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with dehumidifiers shipped in 2028-2057. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028-2057. * 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 a 3-percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global 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 DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). ** 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. See section IV.L of this document for more details. † Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and 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 DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. ‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. ‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's national impacts analysis includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers ( i.e., manufacturer impact analysis, or “MIA”). See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 8.4 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis ( see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For dehumidifiers, the change in INPV ranges from −$5 million to −$3 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a trial standard level is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table; and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposal to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the net benefits would range from $3.74 billion to $3.75 billion at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $1.98 billion to $1.99 billion at 7-percent discount rate. DOE seeks comment on this approach. The benefits and costs of the proposed standards 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 climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized. 11 11 To convert the time series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2023, 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 2023. 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 cost 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 dehumidifiers shipped between 2028 and 2057. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of dehumidifiers shipped between 2028 and 2057. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with a 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section V.B.6 of this document. Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. 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 NO X and SO 2 emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is $8.55 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $142.04 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $22.85 million in climate benefits, and $34.54 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $190.89 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $7.89 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $157.99 million in reduced operating costs, $22.85 million in climate benefits, and $42.30 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $215.24 million per year. Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Dehumidifiers [TSL 3] Million 2022$/year Primary estimate Low-net-benefits estimate High-net-benefits estimate 3% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 157.99 153.04 163.15 Climate Benefits * 22.85 22.66 22.93 Health Benefits ** 42.30 41.95 42.42 Total Benefits † 223.14 217.65 228.50 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 7.89 7.94 7.77 Net Benefits 215.24 209.71 220.74 Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡ (0.5)-(0.3) (0.5)-(0.3) (0.5)-(0.3) 7% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 142.04 138.10 146.50 Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) 22.85 22.66 22.93 Health Benefits ** 34.54 34.31 34.64 Total Benefits † 199.44 195.07 204.06 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 8.55 8.58 8.44 Net Benefits 190.89 186.49 195.62 Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡ (0.5)-(0.3) (0.5)-(0.3) (0.5)-(0.3) Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with dehumidifiers shipped in 2028-2057. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028−2057. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO 2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. * 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 DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). ** 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. 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 DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. ‡‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. ‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's national impacts analysis includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers ( i.e., manufacturer impact analysis, or “MIA”). See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 8.4 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis ( see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For dehumidifiers, the annualized change in INPV ranges from −$0.5 million to −$0.3 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a trial standard level is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table; and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposal to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $214.8 million to $214.9 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $190.4 million to $190.6 million at 7-percent discount rate. DOE seeks comment on this approach. 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, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for dehumidifiers is $8.55 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $142.04 million in reduced product operating costs, $22.85 million in climate benefits, and $34.54 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $190.89 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. 12 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. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis. 12 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 0.33 quad full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”), the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 3.5 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce CO 2 emissions by 6.94 Mt, SO 2 emissions by 1.76 thousand tons, NO X emissions by 11.81 thousand tons, CH 4 emissions by 51.94 thousand tons, N 2 O emissions by 0.06 thousand tons, Hg emissions by 0.01 tons. Based on these findings, 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). The basis for these tentative conclusions is detailed in the remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support document (“TSD”). DOE also considered more stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of 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 dehumidifiers. 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 dehumidifiers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)) EPCA prescribed initial energy conservation standards for these products. Id. 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. (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 dehumidifiers appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix X1. DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including dehumidifiers. 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) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain products, including dehumidifiers, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(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 subcategories. 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 dehumidifiers address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this proposed rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended energy conservation standards that it may adopt. B. Background 1. Current Standards In a final rule published on June 13, 2016 (“June 2016 Final Rule”), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers manufactured on and after June 13, 2019. 81 FR 38338. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(v)(2). Table II.1—Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Dehumidifiers Portable dehumidifier product capacity (pints/day) Minimum integrated energy factor (L/kWh) 25.00 or less 1.30 25.01-50.00 1.60 50.01 or more 2.80 Whole-home dehumidifier product case volume (cubic feet) 8.0 or less 1.77 More than 8.0 2.41 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Dehumidifiers On June 4, 2021, DOE published a Request for Information (“June 2021 RFI”) in the Federal Register to collect data and information to inform its decision, consistent with its obligations under EPCA, as to whether the Department should proceed with an energy conservation standards rulemaking for an amended energy conservation standard for dehumidifiers. 86 FR 29964, 29965. DOE published a notice of public meeting and availability of the preliminary TSD on June 22, 2022 (“June 2022 Preliminary Analysis”). 87 FR 37240. DOE received comments in response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis from the interested parties listed in Table II.2. Table II.2—June 2022 Preliminary Analysis Written Comments Commenter(s) Abbreviation Comment number in the docket Commenter type Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Joint Commenters 21 Efficiency Organizations. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers AHAM 22 Trade Association. Madison Indoor Air Quality MIAQ 20 Manufacturer. A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record. 13 To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided during the July 19, 2022, public meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout this document. Any oral comments provided during the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized and cited separately throughout this document. 13 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers (Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-0043, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov ). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document). C. Deviation From Appendix A In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“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 include a framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. While DOE published a preliminary analysis for this proposed rulemaking, DOE did not publish a framework document in conjunction with the preliminary analysis. 87 FR 37240. DOE notes, however, chapter 2 of the June 2022 Preliminary TSD that accompanied the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis—entitled Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE Responses—describes the general analytical framework that DOE uses in evaluating and developing potential amended energy conservation standards. DOE also previously published the June 2021 RFI, in which DOE identified and sought comment on the analyses that would be conducted in support of an energy conservation standards rulemaking for dehumidifiers. 86 FR 29964, 29965-29966. As such, publication of a separate framework document would be largely redundant of previously published documents. 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 proposed rulemaking, but will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE has opted to instead provide a 60-day comment period. DOE requested comment in the June 2021 RFI on the technical and economic analyses and provided stakeholders a 45-day comment period, after granting a 15-day comment period extension. 86 FR 29964 and 86 FR 34639. Additionally, DOE provided a 60-day comment period for the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. 87 FR 37240, 37241. The analytical methods used for this NOPR are similar to those used in previous rulemaking documents. As such, DOE believes a 60-day comment period is appropriate and will provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. Section 8(d)(1) of appendix A specifies that test procedure rulemakings establishing methodologies used to evaluate proposed energy conservation standards will be finalized prior to publication of a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. Additionally, new test procedures and amended test procedures that impact measured energy use or efficiency will be finalized at least 180 days prior to the close of the comment period for (1) a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation standards or (2) a notice of proposed determination that standards do not need to be amended. In the dehumidifier test procedure final rule published on July 26, 2023, (July 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule), DOE amended the test procedures for dehumidifiers. 88 FR 48035. DOE determined that the amendments adopted will not alter ( i.e., will not impact) the measured efficiency of dehumidifiers. Id. As such, the requirement that the amended test procedure be finalized at least 180 days prior to the close of the comment period for this NOPR does not apply. 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. Scope of Coverage This NOPR covers those consumer products that meet the definition of “dehumidifier” as codified at 10 CFR 430.2. EPCA defines a dehumidifier as a product that is a self-contained, electrically operated, and mechanically encased assembly, consisting of a refrigerated surface (evaporator) that condenses moisture from the atmosphere, a refrigerating system with an electric motor, an air-circulating fan, and a means for collecting or disposing of the condensate. (42 U.S.C. 6291(34)) In a final rule published on July 31, 2015 (“July 2015 Test Procedure Final Rule”), DOE clarified that this definition of a dehumidifier, codified at 10 CFR 430.2, does not apply to portable air conditioners, room air conditioners, or packaged terminal air conditioners. 80 FR 45802, 45804-45805 (July 31, 2015). DOE also added definitions for portable dehumidifiers and whole-home dehumidifiers to 10 CFR 430.2. Portable dehumidifiers are designed to operate within the dehumidified space without ducting attached, although ducting may be attached optionally. Whole-home dehumidifiers are designed to be installed with inlet ducting for return process air and outlet ducting that supplies dehumidified process air to one or more locations in the dehumidified space. 10 CFR 430.2 DOE further established that dehumidifiers that are able to operate as both a portable and whole-home dehumidifier would be tested and rated for both configurations. 80 FR 45802, 45805-45806. See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product classes analyzed in this NOPR. 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. DOE's current energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers are expressed in terms of IEF in L/kWh. 10 CFR 430.32(v)(2) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix X1. C. Technological Feasibility 1. General In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, 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 proposed 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. See sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C (“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. See 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 dehumidifiers, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this proposed rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this proposed rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD. 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels When DOE proposes to adopt a new or 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 dehumidifiers, 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 proposed rulemaking are described in section IV.C.1.b 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 dehumidifiers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed standards (2028-2057). 14 The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of dehumidifiers 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. 14 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 dehumidifiers. 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. 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. 15 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.1 of this document. 15 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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 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. 16 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. 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. 16 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 stated, the standard levels proposed in this document are projected to result in national energy savings of 0.33 quad, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 3.5 million homes. Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, 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). 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 proposed rulemaking. a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers In determining the impacts of a potential new or 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 proposed 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 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 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 emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document. 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 proposed rulemaking with regard to dehumidifiers. Separate subsections 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 shipment 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 proposed rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0043. 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 proposed 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 dehumidifiers. 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. Product Classes When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, 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)) DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards using five dehumidifier product classes (10 CFR 430.32(v)(2)): Portable dehumidifiers have three product classes based on the product capacity: Product Class 1 are those with a capacity of 25.00 pints/day or less, Product Class 2 dehumidifiers have a capacity of 25.01 to 50.00 pints/day, and Product Class 3 dehumidifiers have a capacity of 50.01 pints/day or more. Whole-home dehumidifiers have two product classes based on product case volume: Product Class 4 dehumidifiers have a case volume of 8.0 cubic feet or less, and Product Class 5 have a case volume of more than 8.0 cubic feet. According to MIAQ, many of the units that are meant to be placed in the crawlspace of a home meet the portable dehumidifier definition due to their installation and configuration but have the same manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) as whole-home dehumidifiers. MIAQ stated that DOE did not clearly distinguish the difference between typical portable dehumidifiers and portable crawlspace dehumidifiers in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis and requested that DOE keep this difference in mind when updating the TSD. (MIAQ, No. 20 at pp. 1-2) Dehumidifiers are classified based on their ducting configuration during consumer use, according to the definitions established in 10 CFR 430.2. Portable dehumidifiers operate in applications that require space dehumidification without ducting. Whole-home dehumidifiers operate with ducting, typically in conjunction with a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) system. Dehumidifiers installed in basement crawlspaces without ducting are classified as portable dehumidifiers. DOE is not aware of any specific performance-related feature that would justify a new product class for portable dehumidifiers installed in basement crawlspaces. Therefore, when conducting the engineering analysis, as discussed further in section IV.C of this document and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, DOE considered the MPCs of a variety of units in the largest portable dehumidifier product class, Product Class 3. 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 dehumidifiers, as measured by the DOE test procedure. Table IV.2—Technology Options for Dehumidifiers 1. Microchannel heat exchangers. 2. Built-in hygrometer/humidistat. 3. Improved compressor efficiency. 4. Improved condenser and evaporator performance. 5. Improved controls. 6. Improved defrost methods. 7. Improved demand-defrost controls. 8. Improved fan and fan-motor efficiency. 9. Improved flow-control devices. 10. Low-standby-loss electronic controls. 11. Washable air filters. 12. Pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchangers. 13. Heat pipes. 14. Improved refrigeration system insulation. 15. Refrigerant-desiccant systems. 16. Alternative refrigerants. Several commenters provided feedback on some of these technology options. These comments are summarized below, along with DOE's responses. a. Improved Compressor Efficiency MIAQ stated that finding suitable high-efficiency compressors at the capacities and price points needed for dehumidifiers is a challenge, particularly with the transition to new refrigerants. According to MIAQ, the whole-home and crawlspace dehumidifier industry does not have sufficient volume to garner the full attention of compressor manufacturers. (MIAQ, No. 20 at p. 2) DOE has considered MIAQ's comments regarding high-efficiency compressor availability, and for the reasons discussed in chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD, expects that by the time that compliance is required with any new dehumidifier standards, dehumidifier manufacturers will transition to compressors utilizing R-32 in place of compressors designed for the refrigerants currently in use. DOE acknowledges that there is significant uncertainty regarding the availability of the highest-efficiency single-speed compressors designed for operation with R-32 refrigerant that were analyzed for the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, particularly in the smallest capacities. For this NOPR analysis, DOE has limited the improved compressor efficiency technology option to the maximum R-32 compressor efficiency that was observed within its teardown sample of dehumidifiers, to ensure that such compressors are already commercially available to the dehumidifier industry. Furthermore, should this NOPR proceed to a final rule, compliance with any amended standards would not be required until 3 years after a final rule is published. DOE expects that this 3-year compliance period would provide adequate time for dehumidifier original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) to source a sufficient supply of more efficient R-32 compressors ahead of anticipated demand. DOE expects that standards, if adopted, would therefore provide sufficient time and regulatory certainty for manufacturers and compressor suppliers to establish additional capacity in the supply chain, if needed. MIAQ reiterated its comment on the June 2022 Dehumidifier Test Procedure NOPR 17 that variable-speed compressors do not provide sufficient energy savings to justify the significant increase in cost required to implement this technology, especially in the consumer product market. (MIAQ, No. 20 at p. 3) 17 See posted comment on www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-TP-0026-0008-0015. In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE considered variable-speed compressors as part of the technology assessment, but took into account only their full-load efficiency. As discussed in chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD, the DOE test procedure at appendix X1 does not attribute any partial-load efficiency improvements to variable-speed dehumidifiers as the test procedures for room air conditioners and portable air conditioners do for units with variable-speed compressors, because variable-speed dehumidifiers must maintain a constant evaporator temperature below the dew point regardless of the amount of moisture present in the room. This provides no opportunity for energy savings. DOE also noted the costs associated with implementing variable-speed compressors and accounted for these costs in the engineering analysis where appropriate. Since publication of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, additional market research, manufacturer interviews, and input from commenters led DOE to understand that variable-speed compressors do not offer efficiency benefits sufficient to justify the costs and design challenges associated with implementing them for dehumidifiers. Therefore, in the analysis for this NOPR, DOE did not consider variable-speed compressors as a design option to improve compressor efficiency. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for additional discussion about variable-speed compressors. AHAM requested that DOE evaluate whether the use of variable-frequency drives and similar high frequency components will lead to increased nuisance tripping of ground-fault circuit-interrupters (“GFCIs”) and associated cost implications. According to AHAM, nuisance tripping may require a consumer to call an electrician to change a breaker or replace a unit and could lead to less efficient operation, as continuous dehumidification over time is more efficient than interrupted dehumidification. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 7) DOE is aware that when implementing variable-frequency drives, as for both variable-speed compressors and fan blower electronically commutated motors (“ECMs”), it is possible that GFCI systems will trip without a fault present, requiring a manual reset of the dehumidifier by the consumer. However, DOE understands that GFCI tripping, even for units with variable-speed drives, can generally be mitigated through the use of best practices for reducing leakage current, such as minimizing ECM cable length and ensuring that filtered and unfiltered cables are separated to whatever extent possible to reduce leakage current. Additionally, optimizing the variable-frequency controller power filter to reduce total leakage current to levels below the GFCI detection limits can prevent GFCI tripping. Furthermore, DOE does not have any information on the prevalence of nuisance tripping events or on the potential impact of such trips on consumer utility or dehumidifier energy use. DOE notes that despite the potential for nuisance tripping, a wide range of appliances on the market today, including dehumidifiers, implement variable-frequency drives in their designs. The inclusion of these variable-frequency drive designs in units on the market suggests that they do not have a significant impact on the consumer utility of these products. Therefore, DOE is continuing to consider ECMs for fan blowers as a technology option for the NOPR engineering analysis. However, for the reasons discussed above, DOE did not consider variable-speed compressors as a technology option to improve compressor efficiency in this NOPR analysis. b. Washable Air Filters MIAQ did not support the use of washable air filters and stated that in a limited study washable filters were changed less frequently than disposable filters, leading to reduced airflow and reduced efficiency. (MIAQ, No. 20 at p. 3) DOE understands that the efficiency impacts due to air filters are dependent on regular consumer maintenance. As DOE noted in the technology assessment in chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD, it is difficult to predict the amount of energy savings that could be realized with the addition of washable air filters, as it is dependent on the specific dehumidifier model and use characteristics, and on the degree to which the consumer takes advantage of this feature. DOE also noted in the preliminary TSD that most dehumidifiers incorporate an air filter and that most manufacturers design the air filters to be removable and washable. Therefore, DOE did not consider washable air filters as a design option to improve efficiency in the engineering analysis for the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. The information that MIAQ provided regarding the efficiency impacts of washable air filters further supports DOE's preliminary determination not to include washable air filters as a design option in the engineering analysis, and in light of the uncertainty and lack of sufficient data as to any efficiency benefit associated with them and the prevalence of them in dehumidifiers already on the market, DOE has tentatively removed from consideration washable air filters as a technology option in this NOPR. c. Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers According to MIAQ, air-to-air heat exchangers add significant cost and complexity to the design, MPC, and installation of the unit and typically push the unit into the greater than 8 cubic foot category where minimum efficiency values are considerably higher. (MIAQ, No. 20 at p. 3) DOE considers the costs of design options in the engineering analysis. Although DOE is aware that air-to-air heat exchangers are implemented in many whole-home dehumidifiers with case volumes greater than 8 cubic feet, DOE did not implement air-to-air heat exchangers as a design option to achieve higher efficiency levels in the NOPR engineering analysis because dehumidifiers with size constraints that allow air-to-air heat exchangers already implement them and they require too much case volume increase to implement for other units. ( See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional details.) d. Alternative Refrigerants The Joint Commenters supported DOE's decision to consider R-32 compressors as a design option for dehumidifiers due to their significant potential to improve efficiencies, and agreed that R-32 will likely be acceptable for use in dehumidifiers by the time amended standards come into effect. The Joint Commenters noted that in July 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) proposed to list R-32 as acceptable for use in new residential dehumidifiers. (Joint Commenters, No. 21 at p. 1) MIAQ requested that DOE consider the impact on efficiency that any new refrigerant would have on dehumidifiers. Although some refrigerants may provide efficiency improvements, optimizing the unit's performance would require time and the assistance of component suppliers. (MIAQ, No. 20 at p. 3) DOE is aware that new refrigerant regulations from entities such as the California Air Resource Board (“CARB”) are prompting an industry-wide refrigerant changeover. Based on feedback received during the manufacturer interview process, DOE expects that the process of redesigning and optimizing dehumidifiers for new refrigerants such as R-32 will be part of the typical new unit design process, not a result of any amended standards that DOE may adopt. Additionally, DOE estimates that the implementation of R-32 in dehumidifiers is unlikely to result in an efficiency increase due to the refrigerant changeover alone, although compressors designed for R-32 may be slightly more efficient than compressors designed for R-410a due to other design improvements. Therefore, given this industry-wide refrigerant changeover expected to occur by the compliance date of any new dehumidifier standards, in this NOPR analysis DOE considered the impact of compressor improvements on overall dehumidifier efficiency only for those compressors using R-32, assuming that manufacturers will already have transitioned to refrigeration systems optimized for the new refrigerant. DOE requests comment on the effects of EPA and CARB regulations on refrigerant choices and on whether changes in refrigerant will affect manufacturer's ability to achieve the efficiency levels in the NOPR analysis and the availability of high-efficiency R-32 compressors. For further discussion of the cumulative regulatory burden, see section V.B.2.e of this document. e. Low-Standby-Loss Electronic Controls According to AHAM, low standby-loss electronic controls save as little as 1 watt of power and have a minimal impact to overall energy savings that does not warrant the cost of implementing this technology option, and should therefore have been screened out by DOE. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 4) In the engineering analysis, DOE accounts for the cost relative to the efficiency benefit of all technologies that pass the screening analysis and are considered, as discussed. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for discussion of the potential efficiency benefits of low-standby-loss electronic controls and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the costs of this technology. f. Multi-Circuited Evaporator and Secondary Condenser Coils Since publication of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE became aware of at least one whole-home dehumidifier on the market that implements a novel refrigeration loop design. This patented design “causes part of the refrigerant within the system to evaporate and condense twice in one refrigeration cycle, thereby increasing the compressor capacity over typical systems without adding any additional power to the compressor.” 18 DOE has observed that this technology has resulted in a unit that is at least 4-percent more efficient than any other unit available on the market and a significant reduction in case volume compared to units with similar dehumidification capacities. Therefore, DOE has included multi-circuited evaporator and secondary condenser coil refrigerant systems as an additional technology option for this NOPR. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for additional discussion of this technology. 18 U.S. Patent No. 10,845,069. 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 commercially viable, existing prototypes will not be considered further. (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology 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. If a technology is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to subgroups of consumers, or 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) Safety of technologies. 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 technology has proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the potential for monopolistic concerns. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 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 In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE screened out pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchangers and heat pipes from the analysis for portable dehumidifiers with capacities up to and including 50 pints/day. DOE determined that these dehumidifiers could not accommodate the significant increases in case size and weight required to implement these technologies without a significant adverse effect on consumer utility (screening criterion 3). AHAM agreed that implementation of pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchangers is applicable only to high-capacity portable dehumidifiers in Product Class 3 and requested that DOE recognize that current dehumidifier casings may not accommodate the increase in components and product size associated with this technology option. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 4) For the reasons given in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE is maintaining the same approach to air-to-air heat exchangers and heat pipes in this NOPR analysis. See chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion. DOE is also screening out multi-circuited evaporator and secondary condenser coil refrigerant systems, a technology newly considered for the NOPR per section IV.A.2.f of this document, because it represents a unique-pathway proprietary technology. See chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion. 2. Remaining Technologies Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 of this document meet all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options: Table IV.3—Retained Design Options for Dehumidifiers 1. Microchannel heat exchangers. 2. Built-in hygrometer/humidistat. 3. Improved compressor efficiency. 4. Improved condenser and evaporator performance. 5. Improved controls. 6. Improved defrost methods. 7. Improved demand-defrost controls. 8. Improved fan and fan-motor efficiency. 9. Improved flow-control devices. 10. Low-standby-loss electronic controls. 11. Pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchanger (high-capacity portable and whole-home dehumidifiers only). 12. Heat pipes (high-capacity portable and whole-home dehumidifiers only). 13. Improved refrigeration system insulation. 14. Refrigerant-desiccant systems. 15. Alternative refrigerants. DOE has initially determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria ( i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD. C. Engineering Analysis The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of dehumidifiers. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze ( i.e., the “efficiency analysis”) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency level ( i.e., the “cost analysis”). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency “curves” that are used in downstream analyses ( i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA). 1. Efficiency Analysis DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market ( i.e., the efficiency-level approach), or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model ( i.e., the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to “gap fill” levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market). In this proposed rulemaking, DOE relied on a combination of these two methods in developing cost estimates at each efficiency level for dehumidifiers, structured around the reverse engineering approach. For each product class, DOE analyzed a few units from different manufacturers to ensure the analysis was representative of various designs on the market. The analysis involved reviewing publicly available cost and performance information, physically disassembling commercially available products and modeling equipment cost while removing costs associated with non-efficiency related components or features. From this information, DOE estimated the MPCs for a range of products currently available on the market. DOE then considered the incremental steps manufacturers may take to reach higher efficiency levels. In its modeling, DOE started with the baseline MPC and added the expected design options at each higher efficiency level to estimate incremental MPCs. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional detail on the dehumidifiers analyzed. DOE analyzed six efficiency levels (“ELs”) as part of the engineering analysis for portable dehumidifiers with capacities less than or equal to 50 pints/day: (1) the current DOE standard (baseline); (2) an intermediate level above the baseline but below the ENERGY STAR® level, representing units that exist on the market above the baseline but are not ENERGY STAR units (EL 1); (3) the ENERGY STAR efficiency criterion (EL 2); (4) the level of the most efficient units available on the market (EL 3); (5) an intermediate level below the maximum technologically feasible (max-tech) efficiency that represents the implementation of more efficient compressors and fan motors on the market without any changes to the unit chassis (EL 4); and (6) the max-tech efficiency (EL 5). For portable dehumidifiers with capacities of 50.01 pints/day and above, the distribution of efficiencies that are available on the market and the technology options feasible for this product class required DOE to analyze different efficiency levels, as follows: (1) the current DOE standard (baseline); (2) an intermediate level above the baseline but below the ENERGY STAR level, representing units that exist on the market above the baseline but are not ENERGY STAR units (EL 1); (3) the ENERGY STAR efficiency criterion (EL 2); (4) an intermediate level below max tech that represents the implementation of more efficient compressors and fan motors on the market (EL 3); and (5) the max-tech efficiency (EL 4). For whole-home dehumidifiers with case volumes of 8 cubic feet or below, likewise, the distribution of efficiencies that are available on the market and the technology options feasible for this product class required DOE to analyze different efficiency levels, as follows: (1) the current DOE standard (baseline); (2) the ENERGY STAR efficiency criterion (EL 1); (3) an intermediate level below max tech, representing the level of the most efficient units available on the market (EL 2); and (4) the max-tech efficiency (EL 3). For whole-home dehumidifiers with case volumes larger than 8 cubic feet, likewise, the distribution of efficiencies that are available on the market and the technology options feasible for this product class required DOE to analyze different efficiency levels, as follows: (1) the current DOE standard (baseline); (2) an intermediate level above the baseline but below the ENERGY STAR level, representing the level of the most efficient units available on the market (EL 1); (3) the ENERGY STAR efficiency criterion (EL 2); (4) an intermediate level below max tech that represents the implementation of more efficient compressors and fan motors on the market and some increase to heat exchanger size relative to EL 2 (EL 3); and (5) the max-tech efficiency (EL 4). a. Baseline Efficiency For each product/equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each product/equipment class represents the characteristics of a product/equipment typical of that class ( e.g., capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market. For representative units for teardowns and the NOPR, DOE selected three baseline units that fell within two of the five dehumidifier product classes (Product Class 1 and Product Class 2) as reference points for each analyzed product class, against which DOE measured changes that would result from amended energy conservation standards to support the engineering, LCC, and PBP analyses. Baseline units for two of the other three product classes (Product Class 3 and Product Class 5) were not readily available on the market for analysis. Additionally, as discussed in chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD, for whole-home dehumidifiers with case volumes of 8 cubic feet or less, DOE does not expect that efficiencies and overall designs have changed since the previous standards rulemaking, given that the whole-home dehumidifier standards adopted in the June 2016 Final Rule were the baseline level at the time. For this reason, DOE did not select additional baseline units in Product Class 4 for teardown as part of the NOPR analysis. However, DOE found that higher-efficiency models could provide insight into technologies that were likely to be implemented in baseline units to improve efficiency. Therefore, for product classes where baseline units were not available, DOE estimated the MPC of baseline units by evaluating which design options would need to be removed from the higher-efficiency unit analyzed in order to reduce its efficiency to the baseline level. The baseline units in each of the analyzed product classes represent the basic characteristics of equipment in that class. MIAQ stated in response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis that the current energy conservation standards for portable dehumidifier product classes are not appropriate or in the best interest of the Nation's energy consumption. According to MIAQ, the jump in baseline efficiency from 1.60 L/kWh at the 25.01-50.00 pints/day capacity up to 2.80 L/kWh for larger-capacity units is too drastic and would force MPC and manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) to escalate far above that of smaller dehumidifiers. According to MIAQ, as consumers purchase sufficient dehumidifier capacity match the latent load of their dwelling, this could be through a more expensive, higher-efficiency dehumidifier at an efficiency of 2.80 L/kWh or through multiple less-expensive and less-efficient dehumidifiers at an efficiency of 1.30 L/kWh. MIAQ stated that as MPC and MSP on these two types of units are drastically different, anecdotal evidence indicates many consumers have two or more dehumidifiers in their basement or crawlspace consuming twice the power of a larger unit. Therefore, MIAQ requested that DOE develop a new set of baseline efficiency levels for portable dehumidifiers that create more parity in the MPCs and baseline efficiencies for the product sizes. (MIAQ, No. 20 at pp. 3-4) As noted, DOE analyzes the changes due to potential energy conservation standards against the baseline for each product class. DOE determined in the June 2016 Final Rule that the current standards were technologically feasible and economically justified for each of the five dehumidifier product classes (81 FR 38338, 38385-38388), and models exist on the market at or above the current standard level in each class. Therefore, DOE has evaluated baseline efficiency levels for this NOPR analysis that correspond to the current energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers. DOE notes that units with capacities larger than 50 pints/day have inherent differences in design from those with smaller capacities related to the different consumer utility they provide. The larger dehumidifiers in Product Class 3 provide dehumidification for large spaces, are more robustly constructed, and are more efficient due to their greater size and capacity. The smaller dehumidifiers are intended to dehumidify smaller spaces and provide consumers with an affordable, lighter-weight, and more compact option to dehumidify a targeted area. The current energy conservation standards on which the baseline efficiency levels are based reflect that consumers derive utility from the greater capacity, efficiency, and robust construction of larger dehumidifiers and that smaller dehumidifiers offer utility in the form of their smaller size and lower cost. These differences in utility are borne out in the design differences observed between these classes of dehumidifiers, with larger dehumidifiers implementing more durable materials and larger heat exchangers. These design differences lead to the cost differential observed by manufacturers and consumers between larger and smaller dehumidifiers. DOE developed the higher efficiency levels in each product class based on the units currently on the market, external efficiency criteria such as ENERGY STAR, and technological feasibility of design options to improve dehumidifier efficiency. DOE then evaluated the economic impacts of potential standards at each of these efficiency levels, including incremental impacts on MPCs and MSPs in each product class, as part of the NOPR analysis. DOE is not aware of and lacks sufficient consumer usage data showing that consumers install multiple smaller dehumidifiers in the same room instead of purchasing one larger, more efficient dehumidifier as part of an average period of use, and therefore did not model any product class switching as a result of evaluated potential standards. DOE requests comment regarding consumer's dehumidifier usage patterns and whether consumers typically purchase multiple smaller dehumidifiers to meet dehumidification requirements as opposed to a single, higher capacity dehumidifier. b. Higher Efficiency Levels As discussed above, DOE modeled several efficiency levels above the baseline for dehumidifiers in each product class, using a combination of design options that varied by product class (for detailed discussion of the design options used to model each efficiency level, see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD). As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE also defines a “max-tech” efficiency level to represent the maximum possible efficiency for a given product. At all of these levels, DOE considered incremental compressor efficiency improvements as a design option. In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE reviewed compressor manufacturer product catalogues to identify the maximum technologically feasible R-32 compressor efficiency. However, based on additional research and input from manufacturer interviews, DOE understands that the most efficient compressors listed in catalogues may not be widely available to all dehumidifier manufacturers or available at the scale necessary to serve the dehumidifier market at the anticipated date of compliance of any new standards. This is especially true for the relatively small manufacturers that produce dehumidifiers in Product Class 4 and Product Class 5, given the specialized applications for these products and the corresponding lower production volumes. To address this concern in the NOPR analysis, DOE considered incremental compressor efficiency increases for each product class only up to the highest R-32 single-speed compressor efficiency observed in the teardown sample in that class. This change ensures that the higher-efficiency compressors considered as design options are widely available and technologically feasible for all dehumidifier manufacturers to implement. As discussed in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, DOE modeled replacing permanent split capacitor (“PSC”) fan motors with more efficient ECMs, replacing baseline single-speed compressors with the most efficient single-speed compressors already available on the market, reducing standby power using more efficient controls, and increasing the cabinet and heat exchanger to the largest sizes feasible without impacting consumer utility to improve efficiency. For all product classes, the max-tech level identified exceeds any other regulatory or voluntary efficiency criteria currently in effect. DOE received the following comments related to the higher efficiency levels modeled in the preliminary engineering analysis. AHAM requested that DOE account for additional controls, specifically variable-frequency drives that are required for ECMs in the improved fan and fan motor efficiency technology option. According to AHAM, in addition to the significant cost increase associated with ECMs being a significant obstacle to widespread adoption in dehumidifiers, additional controls would only further increase the cost and require additional space within the product case, potentially affecting the size and weight of the product. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 5) DOE is aware that ECMs require specialized control boards and additional space within dehumidifier chassis to locate them and considered this issue as part of the engineering analysis. DOE found that there is a variable-speed dehumidifier on the market that implements a variable-speed compressor, and this model has the same chassis size as another comparable dehumidifier from the same manufacturer that does not implement the variable-speed components and functionality. DOE expects that a variable-speed dehumidifier would have similar control requirements to one that implements ECMs. Therefore, DOE tentatively finds that the implementation of ECMs for fan blowers in dehumidifiers does not inherently necessitate a change in chassis size. According to AHAM and a survey of its members, employing the technology options that DOE suggested in the preliminary TSD to meet the analyzed efficiency levels for Product Classes 1, 2, and 3 would require significant increases in both model weight and model dimensions. For Product Classes 1 and 2, AHAM stated that an increase of up to 30 percent in model weight and up to 59 percent in model dimensions is required to meet EL 3, and an increase of up to 38 percent in model weight and up to 68 percent in model dimensions is required to meet EL 4. For Product Class 3, AHAM stated that EL 2 would require a product redesign and likely an increase in both weight and dimension by unknown quantities. AHAM also stated that increased product size and weight associated with implementing the technology options specified in the preliminary TSD will affect the consumer utility of dehumidifiers, specifically regarding portability. According to AHAM, consumers must move or lift dehumidifiers when purchased and when used in different spaces in their homes. Additionally, manufacturers design models to meet a 51-pound weight threshold for a one-person lift, a design parameter that not only reflects consumer utility but also is a requirement under worker safety standards, parcel delivery service fee structures, and other distribution requirements that AHAM stated DOE should consider for all product classes. AHAM urged DOE to assess impacts on product weight associated with increased heat exchanger area and added tube rows in the improved condenser and evaporator performance technology option. According to AHAM, an increase in weight of the coil section could severely impact consumer use in existing dehumidifier designs that require lifting the coil section in order to access the water collection bucket. Additionally, AHAM stated that its members specifically identified weight increases associated with this technology option in meeting EL 3 for all product classes. AHAM requested that DOE assess all potential cost increases associated with the technology options that increase product size and/or weight and noted its recommendation for a standard that does not go beyond EL 2 for Product Class 1, a gap-fill analysis for Product Class 2, and no change in the standard for Product Class 3 to avoid these negative impacts. (AHAM, No. 22 at pp. 2-5) In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE modeled the efficiency levels below max-tech mentioned by AHAM by implementing more efficient compressors without any additional design options. In DOE's assessment, these higher-efficiency compressors would result in a slight weight increase but would require no changes to the dehumidifier's chassis size or any substantive change in overall weight. Additionally, based on teardowns of other space conditioning products, DOE does not expect that ECMs are heavier than the PSC motors currently used in dehumidifiers. However, as AHAM suggested, DOE does expect weight changes at the max-tech level associated with increasing the heat exchanger size. DOE accounted for the effect of these weight changes and changes to chassis size in its analysis of shipping costs, and limited the maximum increase in heat exchanger size for portable dehumidifiers in Product Classes 1 and 2 to dimensions already observed on the market in these product classes to ensure the units analyzed retained their consumer utility as smaller, portable units. Because product weight changes due to heat exchanger size increases are correlated with product dimensions, DOE does not expect that these weight increases will result in units that are significantly heavier than those currently on the market, such that any weight increases will not adversely affect consumer utility. For Product Class 3, DOE's market analysis suggests that most models in Product Class 3, even at baseline efficiency, typically weigh roughly between 55 and 70 pounds, already surpassing the 51-pound weight limit for a single-person lift mentioned by AHAM. Therefore, Product Class 3 units already require two people to lift and install, a requirement that would not be altered by minor increases in chassis size and thus weight. However, a significantly larger chassis size might become more unwieldy for two people to lift. Accordingly, DOE limited the heat exchanger dimension increases considered for Product Class 3 to 5 percent greater than those observed in product teardowns in order to preclude any adverse effects on consumer utility. DOE further notes that portable dehumidifiers are typically equipped with wheels that allow consumers to move them from room to room within the home. While DOE is aware of a dehumidifier design that requires consumers to lift the coil section to access the water bucket, the design is not efficiency-related and is proprietary, and therefore DOE did not consider this design in its analysis. In sum, DOE expects that the NOPR analysis and any subsequent amended energy conservation standards would not impact the design, weight, or dimensions of any dehumidifier significantly, as the required chassis dimensions are within the scope of those previously observed in dehumidifiers. For these reasons, in the NOPR analysis DOE continued to consider design options that increase the weight of dehumidifiers, limited to the extent discussed by restrictions on the allowable chassis size increases. DOE requests comment on whether limiting needed chassis size increases is sufficient to preserve consumer utility at the max-tech level. AHAM stated that while improved compressor efficiency can achieve higher overall efficiency, changes in compressor technology may require product redesigns in the form of additional safety components, particularly with the transition to R-32 refrigerant. According to AHAM, these additional safety components would make it more difficult to implement other technology options that will require room within the product casing. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 5) DOE is aware that the EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (“SNAP”) regulations now allow the use of R-32 in new dehumidifiers, provided that they comply with the relevant industry safety standard 19 to ensure new dehumidifiers are designed with the flammability of R-32 in mind. See 88 FR 26382. However, DOE does not have information regarding the sorts of design changes necessary to comply with this standard. See section V.B.2.e of this document for discussion of how DOE accounts for refrigerant transition costs in its cumulative regulatory burden analysis. 19 3rd edition, dated November 1, 2019, of Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”) Standard 60335-2-40, “Household and Similar Electrical Appliances—Safety—Part 2-40: Particular Requirements for Electrical Heat Pumps, Air Conditioners and Dehumidifiers”. ASAP and the Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to evaluate at least one intermediate efficiency level between EL 3 and EL 4 for Product Classes 1 and 2 to address the large gap in efficiencies due to the introduction of multiple design options at EL 4. The Joint Commenters added that DOE could evaluate an intermediate level based on the highest-efficiency compressors, or one reflecting all design options except for increases in heat exchanger size. According to the Joint Commenters, DOE may refer to the April 2022 NOPR for room air conditioners in which the most efficient single-speed compressors were associated with an increase in efficiency of 19 to 25 percent relative to baseline units and an incremental cost of less than $15. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 19 at pp. 19-20; Joint Commenters, No. 21 at p. 2) In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis for Product Classes 1 and 2, DOE analyzed two efficiency levels above the ENERGY STAR level: the maximum available efficiency on the market and the max-tech efficiency. For Product Class 3 and for whole-home dehumidifiers, DOE analyzed the max-tech efficiency level above the ENERGY STAR level and no other intermediate levels, because there were no units on the market above the ENERGY STAR efficiency. While conducting the analysis for this NOPR, DOE noted the potential to add an efficiency level for all product classes beyond the maximum available efficiency but below max tech by using more efficient single-speed compressors and implementing ECM technology. DOE used these design options to model a new intermediate efficiency level, EL 4, for all product classes. The new EL 4 level improves the efficiency by 35 to 63 percent relative to baseline units with incremental costs between $83 and $119, depending on product class. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional discussion of the new efficiency levels and incremental costs. 2. Cost Analysis The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the product on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows: □ Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component by component, to develop a detailed bill of materials for the product. □ Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams ( e.g., available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites) to develop the bill of materials for the product. □ Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is feasible ( e.g., for tightly integrated products such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagr [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%3A2023-24106. Public record. Not legal advice.