# Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2024-04765 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** March 12, 2024 - **Citation:** 89 FR 18164 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058] RIN 1904-AF59 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including consumer clothes dryers. In this direct final rule, DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers. DOE has determined that the amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified. DATES: The effective date of this rule is July 10, 2024. If adverse comments are received by July 1, 2024 and DOE determines that such comments may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), a timely withdrawal of this rule will be published in the Federal Register . If no such adverse comments are received, compliance with the amended standards established for consumer clothes dryers in this direct final rule is required on and after March 1, 2028. Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the standards contained in this direct final rule should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or before April 11, 2024. ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure. The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. 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 standards contained in this direct final rule. Interested persons may contact the Antitrust 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 direct final rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5649. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 597-6265. Email: Matthew.Schneider@hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers B. Impact on Manufacturers C. National Benefits and Costs D. Conclusion II. Introduction A. Authority B. Background 1. Current Standards 2. Current Test Procedure 3. The Joint Agreement III. General Discussion A. Scope of Coverage B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points of View 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 B. Screening Analysis 1. Screened Out Technologies a. Thermoelectric Heating, Electric Only b. Microwave, Electric Only c. Indirect Heating d. RF Drying, Electric Only e. Ultrasonic Drying, Electric Only 2. Remaining Technologies C. Engineering Analysis 1. Efficiency Analysis a. Baseline Efficiency Levels b. Incremental Efficiency Levels 2. Cost Analysis 3. Cost-Efficiency Results D. Markups Analysis E. Energy Use Analysis F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 1. Product Cost 2. Installation Cost 3. Annual Energy Consumption 4. Energy Prices 5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 6. Product Lifetime 7. Discount Rates 8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case 9. Payback Period Analysis G. Shipments Analysis H. National Impact Analysis 1. Product Efficiency Trends 2. National Energy Savings 3. Net Present Value Analysis I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 1. Overview 2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs a. Manufacturer Production Costs b. Shipments Projections c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 3. 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 c. Sensitivity Analysis Using Updated 2023 SC-GHG Estimates 2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts M. Utility Impact Analysis N. Employment Impact Analysis O. Regulatory Impact Analysis P. Other Comments V. Analytical Results and Conclusions A. Trial Standard Levels B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings 1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results b. Direct Impacts on Employment c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 3. National Impact Analysis a. Significance of Energy Savings b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 7. Other Factors 8. Summary of Economic Impacts C. Conclusion 1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer Clothes Dryer Standards 2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14094 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Information Quality M. Congressional Notification VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Synopsis of the Direct Final 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 consumer clothes dryers, the subject of this direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) 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, among other things, 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 significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule amending energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers. The adopted standard levels in this direct final rule were proposed in a letter submitted to DOE jointly by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility. This letter, titled “Energy Efficiency Agreement of 2023” (hereafter, the “Joint Agreement”,) 3 recommends specific energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE subsequently received letters of support from States—including New York, California, and Massachusetts 4 —and utilities—including San Diego Gas and Electric (“SDG&E”) and Southern California Edison (“SCE”) 5 —advocating for the adoption of the recommended standards. 3 Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0055. 4 Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0056. 5 Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0057. In accordance with the direct final rule provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has determined that the recommendations contained in the Joint Agreement are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is also simultaneously publishing elsewhere in this Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that contains standards identical to those adopted in this direct final rule. Consistent with the statute, DOE is providing a 110-day public comment period on the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines that any comments received provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or any other applicable law, DOE will publish the reasons for withdrawal and continue the rulemaking under the NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) See section II.A of this document for more details on DOE's statutory authority. The amended standards that DOE is adopting in this direct final rule are the efficiency levels recommended in the Joint Agreement (shown in Table I.1). The standards are expressed in terms of the combined energy factor (“CEF D2 ”), measured in pounds per kilowatt-hour (“lb/kWh”), as determined in accordance with DOE's consumer clothes dryer test procedure at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix D2 (“appendix D2”). The CEF metric includes active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy use. The amended standards recommended in the Joint Agreement are represented as trial standard level (“TSL”) 3 (hereinafter the “Recommended TSL”) and are described in section V.A of this document. The Joint Agreement's standards for consumer clothes dryers apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on March 1, 2028. Table I.1—Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers [Compliance starting March 1, 2028] Product class Minimum_CEFD2 (lb/kWh) (i) Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (“ft 3 ”) or greater capacity) 3.93 (ii) Electric, Compact (120 volts (“V”)) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 4.33 (iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 3.57 (iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity) 3.48 (v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 2.02 (vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 2.68 (vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer 2.33 A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers Table I.2 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the adopted standards on consumers of consumer clothes dryers, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”). 6 The average LCC savings are positive for all product classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of consumer clothes dryers, which is estimated to be 14 years ( see section IV.F of this document). 6 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 Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Consumer Clothes Dryers Consumer clothes dryer class Average LCC savings (2022$) Simple payback period (years) Electric, Standard (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity) $252 0.6 Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 66 2.2 Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 90 2.0 Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity) 102 1.9 Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 99 0.4 Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer 11 0.0 DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document. B. Impact on Manufacturers The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year (2024) through the end of the analysis period, which is 30 years from the analyzed compliance date. 7 Using a real discount rate of 7.5 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers in the case without amended standards is $2.12 billion in 2022$. 8 Under the adopted standards, which align with the Recommended TSL for consumer clothes dryers, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −6.8 percent to −5.7 percent, which is a decrease of approximately $144.2 million to a decrease of approximately $119.7 million. In order to bring products into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $180.7 million. 7 DOE's analysis period extends 30 years from the compliance year. The analysis period for the MIA ranges from 2024-2056 for the no-new-standards case and all TSLs, except for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL). The analysis period for the Recommended TSL ranges from 2024-2057 due to the 2028 compliance year. 8 The no-new-standards case INPV of $2.12 billion reflects the sum of discounted free cash flows from 2024-2056 (from the reference year to 30 years after the 2027 compliance date) plus a discounted terminal value. DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J and section V.B.2 of this document. C. National Benefits and Costs 9 9 All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022 dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2024 unless explicitly stated otherwise. DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for consumer clothes dryers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2028-2057), amount to 2.7 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads. 10 This represents a savings of 11 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”). 10 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 standards for consumer clothes dryers ranges from $ 9.23 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $20.08 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product and installation costs for consumer clothes dryers purchased during the period 2028-2057. In addition, the adopted standards for consumer clothes dryers are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 57.1 million metric tons (“Mt”) 11 of carbon dioxide (“CO 2 ”), 13.9 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO 2 ”), 116.5 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO X ”), 527.6 thousand tons of methane (“CH 4 ”), 0.5 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N 2 O”), and 0.1 tons of mercury (“Hg”). 12 The estimated cumulative reduction in CO 2 emissions through 2030 amounts to 1.3 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of more than 260 thousand homes. 11 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO 2 are presented in short tons. 12 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2023 (“ AEO2023 ”). AEO2023 represents current Federal and State legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for further discussion of 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 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 an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (“IWG”). 13 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 $3.3 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. 13 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, 14 as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $2.6 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $6.3 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. 15 DOE is currently only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) concentrations from two precursors (SO 2 and NO X ), and from changes in ambient ozone from one precursor (for NO X ), but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions. 14 U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly Emitted PM 2.5 , PM 2.5 Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors. 15 DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions reductions resulting from the considered trial standard levels (“TSLs”) for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866. Table I.3 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the amended standards for consumer clothes dryers. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others. Table I.3—Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers Billion (2022$) 3% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 21.1 Climate Benefits * 3.3 Health Benefits ** 6.3 Total Benefits † 30.7 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 1.0 Net Monetized Benefits 20.1 Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV ‡‡) (0.14)-(0.12) 7% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 9.8 Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) 3.3 Health Benefits ** 2.6 Total Benefits † 15.8 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 0.6 Net Monetized Benefits 9.2 Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV ‡‡) (0.14)-(0.12) Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer clothes dryers 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 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; however, DOE 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 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 a 3-percent discount rate. ‡ 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 impact 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 (the MIA). See section IV.J of this document and chapter 12 of the direct final rule technical support document (“TSD”). 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 7.5 percent that is estimated in the MIA ( see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For consumer clothes dryers, those values are −$144 million to −$120 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer 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 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 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 direct final rule 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 direct final rule, the net benefits would range from $19.96 billion to $19.98 billion at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $9.06 billion to $9.08 billion at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( ) indicate negative values. The benefits and costs of the adopted 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. 16 16 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, 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., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2024. 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 consumer clothes dryers shipped in 2028-2057. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of consumer clothes dryers shipped in 2028-2057. 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 SC-GHG discount rates in section IV.L of this document. Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the adopted standards, 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 adopted in this rule is $60.0 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $971.4 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $185.5 million in climate benefits, and $259.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $1,357 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $57.2 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,177 million in reduced operating costs, $185.5 million in climate benefits, and $349.4 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $1,654 million per year. Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers (2028-2057) Million/year (2022$) Primary estimate Low-net-benefits estimate High-net-benefits estimate 3% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 1,177 1,103 1,230 Climate Benefits * 185.5 178.9 187.8 Health Benefits ** 349.4 337.2 353.7 Total Benefits † 1,712 1,619 1,771 Consumer Incremental Product Costs 57.2 58.9 54.4 Net Benefits 1,654 1,560 1,717 Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV ‡‡) (12)-(10) (12)-(10) (12)-(10) 7% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings 971.4 915.5 1,014 Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) 185.5 178.9 187.8 Health Benefits ** 259.9 251.5 262.8 Total Benefits † 1,417 1,346 1,464 Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ 60.0 61.2 57.7 Net Benefits 1,357 1,285 1,407 Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV ‡‡) (12)-(10) (12)-(10) (12)-(10) Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer clothes dryers shipped in 2028-2057. These results include benefits to consumers which 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 AEO2023 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 constant 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 up 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 it 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 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 a 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 impact 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 (the MIA). See section IV.J of this document and chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. 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 7.5 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis ( see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For consumer clothes dryers, those values are −$12 million to −$10 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer 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 chapter 12 of this direct final rule TSD, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this direct final rule 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 direct final rule, the annualized net benefits, using the primary estimate, would range from $1,642 million to $1,644 at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $1,345 million to $1,347 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( ) indicate negative values. DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document. D. Conclusion DOE has determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). After considering the recommended standards and weighing the benefits and burdens, DOE has determined that the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the criteria for prescribing new or amended standards. Specifically, the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) has determined that the adoption of the recommended standards would result in the significant conservation of energy and is the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining whether the recommended standards are economically justified, the Secretary has determined that the benefits of the recommended standards exceed the burdens. The Secretary has further concluded that the recommended standards, when considering the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings, would yield benefits that outweigh the negative impacts on some consumers and on manufacturers, including the conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers. 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 standards for consumer clothes dryers is $60.0 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $971.4 million in reduced product operating costs, $185.5 million in climate benefits, and $259.9 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $1,357 million per year. DOE notes that the net benefits are substantial even in the absence of the climate benefits, 17 and DOE would adopt the same standards in the absence of such benefits. 17 The information on climate benefits is provided in compliance with Executive Order 12866. 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. 18 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. 18 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 2.7 quads FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 18 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce cumulative CO 2 emissions by 57.1 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD. Under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule amending the energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers. Consistent with this authority, DOE is also simultaneously publishing elsewhere in this Federal Register a NOPR proposing standards that are identical to those contained in this direct final rule. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i). II. Introduction The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this direct final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for consumer clothes dryers. A. Authority EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include consumer clothes dryers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(8)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(3)), and directed DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296). Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances 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 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for consumer clothes dryers appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix D1 (“appendix D1”) and appendix D2 (“appendix D2”). DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including consumer clothes dryers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 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 considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) Further, EPCA, as codified, 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, as codified, 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 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)) EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a type (or class) of product must specify a different standard level for a type or class of products 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 consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a 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)) Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, final rules for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, are required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for consumer clothes dryers address standby mode and off mode energy use, as do the amended standards adopted in this direct final rule. Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to directly issue a final rule ( i.e., a “direct final rule”) establishing an energy conservation standard upon receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine whether a jointly submitted recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a NOPR that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) While DOE typically provides a comment period of 60 days on proposed standards, for a NOPR accompanying a direct final rule, DOE provides a comment period of the same length as the comment period on the direct final rule— i.e., 110 days. Based on the comments received during this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if: (1) one or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the direct final rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner. ( Id. ) DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final rule authority. In a final rule amending the Department's “Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products” at 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“Process Rule” or “appendix A”), DOE noted that it may issue standards recommended by interested persons that are fairly representative of relative points of view as a direct final rule when the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But the direct final rule provision in EPCA does not impose additional requirements applicable to other standards rulemakings, which is consistent with the unique circumstances of rules issued through consensus agreements under DOE's direct final rule authority. Id. DOE's discretion remains bounded by its statutory mandate to adopt a standard that results in the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified—a requirement found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Id. As such, DOE's review and analysis of the Joint Agreement is limited to whether the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). B. Background 1. Current Standards In a direct final rule published on April 21, 2011, (“April 2011 Direct Final Rule”) DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers manufactured on and after January 1, 2015. 76 FR 22454. 19 These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3) and are shown in Table II.1. These standards are consistent with a prior joint proposal submitted to DOE by interested parties representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer groups. 20 19 DOE published a confirmation of effective date and compliance date for the direct final rule on August 24, 2011. 76 FR 52854. 20 Available at: www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0049 . The current standards are defined in terms of a minimum allowable CEF, as measured according to appendix D1. Even though DOE maintained the same energy efficiency descriptor for both appendix D1 and appendix D2, DOE notes that the CEF values are not equivalent because of the extensive differences in test methods. 21 To avoid potential confusion that would result from using the same efficiency descriptor for both test procedures as it relates to the standards discussed in this document, DOE is including a “D1” or “D2” subscript when referring to the appendix D1 CEF and appendix D2 CEF, respectively (“CEF D1 ” and “CEF D2 ”). 21 While the current standards are based on CEF as determined in accordance with appendix D1, manufacturers are permitted to use the appendix D2 test procedure to comply with the current standards, as long as they use a single appendix for all representations. Beginning on the compliance date of the amended standards established by this direct final rule, manufacturers will be required to use appendix D2 to comply with the amended standards. Table II.1—Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers as Measured Under Appendix D1 Product class CEF D1 (lb/kWh) (i) Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity) 3.73 (ii) Vented Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 3.61 (iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 3.27 (iv) Vented Gas 3.30 (v) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 2.55 (vi) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer 2.08 2. Current Test Procedure On October 8, 2021, DOE published a final rule for the test procedure rulemaking (86 FR 56608) (the “October 2021 TP Final Rule”), in which it amended appendix D1 and appendix D2, both entitled “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Clothes Dryers,” to provide additional detail in response to questions from manufacturers and test laboratories, including additional detail regarding the testing of “connected” models, dryness level selection, and the procedures for maintaining the required heat input rate for gas consumer clothes dryers; additional detail for the test procedures for performing inactive and off mode power measurements; specifications for the final moisture content (“FMC”) required for testing automatic termination control dryers; specification of a narrower scale resolution for the weighing scale used to determine moisture content of test loads; and specification that the test load must be weighed within 5 minutes after a test cycle has terminated. In addition, as part of the October 2021 TP Final Rule, DOE amended the test procedures to update the estimated number of annual use cycles for consumer clothes dryers; provide further direction for additional provisions within the test procedures; specify rounding requirements for all reported values; apply consistent use of nomenclature and correct typographical errors; remove obsolete sections of the test procedures, including appendix D; and update the reference to the applicable industry test procedure to the version certified by the American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”). 86 FR 56608, 56610. DOE's current energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers are expressed in terms of CEF D1 . ( See 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3).) Appendix D1 tests timed drying cycles, and accounts for clothes dryers with automatic termination controls by applying a higher field use factor to units that have this feature. Appendix D2 tests “normal” automatic termination cycles and more accurately measures the effects of automatic cycle termination. EPCA authorizes DOE to design test procedures that measure energy efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The appendix D2 test procedure, which is required for use to demonstrate compliance with the amended energy conservation standards established in this direct final rule, measures the energy consumption of a representative use cycle that dries a load of laundry from an initial moisture content of 57.5 percent to an FMC of less than 2 percent. 86 FR 56624-56625. For timer clothes dryers, the test load is dried until the FMC is between 1 and 2.5 percent of the bone-dry weight of the test load. The measured energy consumption is then normalized to determine the energy consumption required to dry the test load to 2-percent FMC, with a field use factor applied to account for the over-drying energy consumption. For automatic termination control clothes dryers, appendix D2 specifies that a “normal” program be selected for the test cycle, and for clothes dryers that do not have a “normal” program, the cycle recommended by the manufacturer for drying cotton or linen shall be selected. If the drying temperature and drying level settings can be chosen independently of the program, they shall be set at the maximum drying temperature setting, and at a “normal” or “medium” dryness level setting. The test is considered valid if the FMC of the test load is 2 percent or less after the completion of the test cycle. If the FMC is greater than 2 percent, the test is considered invalid and a new run shall be conducted using the highest dryness level setting. The current 2-percent FMC requirement using the DOE test cloth was adopted as representative of approximately 5-percent FMC for “real-world” clothing, based on data submitted in a joint petition for rulemaking. 22 DOE determined in the final rule published on August 14, 2013, that established the appendix D2 Test procedure that the specified 2-percent FMC using the DOE test load was representative of consumer expectations for dryness of clothing in field use. 78 FR 49608, 49620-49622, 49610-49611. DOE did not amend the FMC requirements in the October 2021 TP Final Rule. 86 FR 56626. 22 The petition was submitted by AHAM, Whirlpool Corporation, General Electric Company, Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc., BSH, Alliance Laundry Systems, Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and DeLonghi, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Alliance to Save Energy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, and Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumer Law Center. See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0054, No. 3. DOE has conducted the rulemaking analysis for this direct final rule based on CEF D2 because compliance with the amended energy conservation standards established in this direct final rule must be determined based on the use of appendix D2. DOE discusses additional details in section IV.C.1 of this document about how it developed the engineering baseline, in terms of CEF D2 , from the current consumer clothes dryer standards that are in terms of CEF D1 . 3. The Joint Agreement On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement of recommended standards ( i.e., the Joint Agreement) for various home appliance products, including consumer clothes dryers, submitted jointly by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility. 23 In addition to the recommended standards for consumer clothes dryers, the Joint Agreement also included separate recommendations for several other covered products. 24 And, while acknowledging that DOE may implement these recommendations in separate rulemakings, the Joint Agreement also stated that the recommendations were recommended as a complete package and each recommendation is contingent upon the other parts being implemented. DOE understands this to mean that the Joint Agreement is contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes to adopt all of the recommended standards in the agreement. That is distinguished from an agreement where issuance of an amended energy conservation standard for a covered product is contingent on issuance of amended energy conservation standards for the other covered products. If the Joint Agreement were so construed, it would conflict with the anti-backsliding provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), because it would imply the possibility that, if DOE were unable to issue an amended standard for a certain product, it would have to withdraw a previously issued standard for one of the other products. The anti-backsliding provision, however, prevents DOE from withdrawing or amending an energy conservation standard to be less stringent. As a result, DOE will be proceeding with individual rulemakings that will evaluate each of the recommended standards separately under the applicable statutory criteria. 23 The signatories to the Joint Agreement include AHAM, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that make the affected products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,; Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of America; Perlick Corporation; Samsung Electronics America Inc; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool Corporation. 24 The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for 6 covered products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; cooking products; and miscellaneous refrigeration products. A court decision issued after DOE received the Joint Agreement is also relevant to this rule. On March 17, 2022, various States filed a petition seeking review of a final rule revoking two final rules that established product classes for residential dishwashers with a cycle time for the normal cycle of 60 minutes or less, top-loading residential clothes washers (“RCWs”) and certain classes of consumer clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, and front-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes (collectively, “short cycle product classes”). The petitioners argued that the final rule revoking the short cycle product classes violated EPCA and was arbitrary and capricious. On January 8, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded the matter to DOE for further proceedings consistent with the Fifth Circuit's opinion. See Louisiana v. United States Department of Energy, 90 F.4th 461 (5th Cir. 2024). On February 14, 2024, following the Fifth Circuit's decision in Louisiana v. United States Department of Energy, DOE received a second joint statement from this same group of stakeholders in which the signatories reaffirmed the Joint Agreement, stating that the recommended standards represent the maximum levels of efficiency that are technologically feasible and economically justified. 25 In the letter, the signatories clarified that “short-cycle” product classes for RCWs, clothes dryers, and dishwashers did not exist at the time that the signatories submitted their recommendations and it is their understanding that these classes also do not exist at the current time. Accordingly, the parties clarified that the Joint Agreement did not address short-cycle product classes. The signatories also stated that they did not anticipate that the recommended energy conservation standards in the Joint Agreement will negatively affect features or performance, including cycle time, for consumer clothes dryers. 25 This document is available in the docket at: www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058 . The Joint Agreement recommends amended standard levels for consumer clothes dryers as presented in Table II.2. (Joint Agreement, No. 55 at p. 9) 26 Details of the Joint Agreement recommendations for other products are provided in the Joint Agreement posted in the docket. 27 26 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov ). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number at page of that document). 27 The Joint Agreement available in the docket at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0055 . Table II.2—Recommended Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers Product class Minimum energy efficiency ratio (lb/kWh) Compliance date Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (“ft 3 ”) or greater capacity) 3.93 March 1, 2028 Electric, Compact (120 volts (“V”)) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 4.33 Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 3.57 Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity) 3.48 Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 2.02 Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 2.68 Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer 2.33 When the Joint Agreement was submitted, DOE was conducting a rulemaking to consider amending the standards for consumer clothes dryers. As part of that process, DOE published a NOPR and announced a public meeting on August 23, 2022 (“August 2022 NOPR”) seeking comment on its proposed amended standard to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 87 FR 51734. DOE subsequently held a public webinar on September 13, 2022, to discuss and receive comments on the NOPR TSD. Although DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement as a direct final rule and no longer proceeding with its prior rulemaking, DOE did consider relevant comments, data, and information obtained during that rulemaking process in determining whether the recommended standards from the Joint Agreement are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Any discussion of comments, data, or information in this direct final rule that were obtained during DOE's prior rulemaking will include a parenthetical reference that provides the location of the item in the public record. 28 28 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov ). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number at page of that document). III. General Discussion DOE is issuing this direct final rule after determining that the recommended standards submitted in the Joint Agreement meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). More specifically, DOE has determined that the recommended standards were submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view and the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). On March 17, 2022, various states filed a petition seeking review of a final rule revoking two final rules that established product classes for residential dishwashers with a cycle time for the normal cycle of 60 minutes or less, top-loading RCWs and certain classes of consumer clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, and front-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes (collectively, “short cycle product classes”). The petitioners argued that the final rule revoking the short cycle product classes violated EPCA and was arbitrary and capricious. On January 8, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded the matter to DOE for further proceedings consistent with the Fifth Circuit's opinion. See Louisiana v. United States Department of Energy, 90 F.4th 461 (5th Cir. 2024) Following the Fifth Circuit's decision, the signatories to the Joint Agreement submitted a second letter to DOE, which stated that Joint Recommendation did not “address” “short-cycle product classes.” 29 That is because, as the letter explained, such product classes “did not exist” at the time of the Joint Agreement. 29 This document is available in the docket at: www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058 . In a recently issued Request for Information, 30 DOE is commencing a rulemaking process on remand from the Fifth Circuit (the Remand Proceeding) by soliciting further information, relevant to the issues identified by the Fifth Circuit, regarding any short cycle product classes. In that Remand Proceeding, DOE will conduct the analysis required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B) to determine whether any short-cycle products have a “capacity or other performance-related feature [that] . . . justifies a higher or lower standard from that which applies (or will apply) to other products. . . .” 30 See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=50 . The current standards applicable to any products within the scope of that proceeding remain unchanged by this rule. See 10 CFR 430.32(g). Consistent with the Joint Parties' letter, short-cycle products are not subject to the amended standards adopted by this direct final rule. If the short-cycle products that DOE will consider in the Remand Proceeding were subject to these standards, that would have the practical effect of limiting the options available in the Remand Proceeding. That is because EPCA's anti-backsliding provision precludes DOE from prescribing any amended standard “which increases the maximum allowable energy use” of a covered product. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). Accordingly, were the products at issue in the Remand Proceeding also subject to the amended standards adopted here, the Department could only reaffirm the standards adopted in this direct final rule or adopt more stringent standards. The Joint Agreement specifies the product classes for consumer clothes dryers: electric, standard; electric, compact; vented electric, compact; vented gas, standard; vented gas, compact; ventless electric, compact; and ventless electric, combination washer-dryer. Although these product classes were not further divided by cycle time, DOE understands them to exclude vented electric standard-size clothes dryers and vented gas standard-size clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, when tested according to appendix D2. As previously noted, any such “short-cycle” consumer clothes dryers will be considered in the Remand Proceeding; the current standards applicable to such “short-cycle” consumer clothes dryers are unchanged by this rule. Under the direct final rule authority at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE evaluates whether recommended standards are in accordance with criteria contained in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE does not have the authority to revise recommended standards submitted under the direct final rule provision in EPCA. Therefore, DOE did not analyze any additional product classes beyond those product classes included in the Joint Agreement. That is, DOE has not separately considered or established amended standards applicable to any short-cycle product classes. In the event that DOE establishes short-cycle product classes, pursuant to the rulemaking on remand from the Fifth Circuit, DOE will necessarily consider what amended standards ought to apply to any such product classes and will do so in conformance with EPCA. DOE notes that the data and analysis used to support this direct final rule includes information for vented electric standard-size clothes dryers and vented gas standard-size clothes dryers that is not distinguished by cycle time and is representative of all consumer clothes dryers currently on the market today. To the extent that any short cycle product classes were included in this data and analysis, DOE believes the amount of such data is negligible. A. Scope of Coverage Before discussing how the Joint Agreement meets the requirements for issuing a direct final rule, it is important to clarify the scope of coverage for the recommended standards. EPCA does not define the term “clothes dryer.” ( See 42 U.S.C. 6291) DOE has defined an “electric clothes dryer” as a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum with forced air circulation. The heat source is electricity and the drum and blower(s) are driven by an electric motor(s). 10 CFR 430.2. DOE has defined a “gas clothes dryer” as a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum with forced air circulation. The heat source is gas and the drum and blower(s) are driven by an electric motor(s). Id. This direct final rule covers consumer clothes dryers, i.e., those consumer products that meet the definitions of “electric clothes dryer” and “gas clothes dryer,” as codified at 10 CFR 430.2. See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product classes analyzed in this direct final rule. B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points of View Under the direct final rule provision in EPCA, recommended energy conservation standards must be submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) as determined by DOE. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) With respect to this requirement, DOE notes that the Joint Agreement included a trade association, AHAM, which represents 11 manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers. 31 The Joint Agreement also included environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, and a gas and electric utility company. Additionally, DOE received a letter in support of the Joint Agreement from the States of New York, California, and Massachusetts ( See comment No. 56). DOE also received a letter in support of the Joint Agreement from a gas and electric utility, SDG&E, and an electric utility, SCE ( See comment No. 57). As a result, DOE has determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of view. 31 These companies include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Beko US Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; GE Appliances, a Haier Company; LG Electronics; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Samsung Electronics America Inc.; and Whirlpool Corporation. 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 rulemaking. In evaluating the recommended standards proposed in the Joint Agreement, DOE conducted the same analysis. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A. After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. Sections 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for consumer clothes dryers, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the direct final rule TSD. 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for consumer clothes dryers using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this document and in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD. D. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings For each TSL considered, DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to consumer clothes dryers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-2056 for all TSLs except the Recommended TSL ( i.e., TSL 3) and 2028-2057 for TSL 3). 32 The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of consumer clothes dryers purchased in the 30-year analysis 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. 32 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period. DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet models to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential amended standards for consumer clothes dryers. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels ( i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. 33 DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document. 33 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 including through a direct final rule, 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. 34 For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impact 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. 34 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 adopted in this direct final rule are projected to result in national energy savings of 2.7 quads, the equivalent of the electricity use of 18 million homes in one year. Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule 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 direct final rulemaking. a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers In determining the impacts of amended standards 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 cost (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 IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings. d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products In evaluating design options and the impact of the recommended 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 adopted in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking. e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a 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 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 direct final rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the rule in determining whether to withdraw the direct final rule. DOE will also publish and respond to the DOJ's comments in the Federal Register in a separate document. 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 adopted 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 adopted 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 effect potential amended 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 of this document. IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking regarding consumer clothes dryers. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses, including relevant comments DOE received during its separate rulemaking to amend the energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers prior to receiving the Joint Agreement. DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058 . Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”) Annual Energy Outlook 2023 (“ AEO2023 ”) for the emissions and utility impact analyses. A. Market and Technology Assessment DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of consumer clothes dryers. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment. 1. Product Classes The Joint Agreement specifies seven product classes for consumer clothes dryers. (Joint Agreement, No. 55 at p. 9). In this direct final rule, DOE is adopting the product classes from the Joint Agreement, as listed in Table IV.1. Table IV.1—Joint Agreement Consumer Clothes Dryer Product Classes Product classes 1. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) 2. Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) 3. Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) 4. Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) 5. Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) 6. Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) 7. Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer DOE further notes that product classes established through EPCA's direct final rule authority are not subject to the criteria specified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) for establishing product classes. However, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)—which is applicable to direct final rules—DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this direct final rule will not result in the unavailability in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States currently. 35 Additionally, DOE notes that DOE's findings in this regard are discussed in detail in section V.B.4 of this document. 35 EPCA specifies that DOE may not prescribe an amended or new standard if the Secretary finds (and publishes such finding) that 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 at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 2. Technology Options In this direct final rule, DOE considered the technology options listed in Table IV.2, consistent with the table of technology options presented in the August 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 51734. Chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final rule includes a detailed list and descriptions of all technology options identified for consumer clothes dryers. As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final rule, DOE has performed market research and evaluated available consumer clothes dryers to assess existing technology options to improve efficiency. The results of this research are discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final rule. DOE notes that it did not receive any comments regarding the technology options analyzed in the August 2022 NOPR. Table IV.2—Direct Final Rule Analysis: Technology Options for Consumer Clothes Dryers Dryer control or drum upgrades: Improved termination Increased insulation Modified operating conditions Improved air circulation Improved drum design Methods of Exhaust Heat Recovery (Vented Models Only): Recycle exhaust heat Inlet air preheat Inlet air preheat, condensing mode Moisture Removal Options: Heat pump, electric only Thermoelectric heating, electric only Microwave, electric only Modulating heat Indirect heating RF drying, electric only Ultrasonic drying, electric only Component Improvements: Improved motor efficiency Improved fan efficiency Standby Power Improvements: Transformerless power supply with auto-powerdown B. Screening Analysis DOE uses the following 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 sum, 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 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 conducting the screening analysis for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received in response to the screening analysis conducted for the August 2022 NOPR. a. Thermoelectric Heating, Electric Only DOE notes that thermoelectric heating clothes dryers are still undergoing preliminary research, including at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (“ORNL”). While ORNL's test results of a preliminary prototype have shown the potential for improved efficiency, ORNL indicated that the initial prototype design produced longer-than-desired drying times due to direct-contact heat transfer limitations via the drum surface. ORNL subsequently developed another prototype that added pumped secondary water loops that transferred heat from the thermoelectric modules to the process air via air-to-water heat exchangers to further improve efficiency and minimize cycle length. ORNL's testing indicated efficiency and cycle times for this prototype that are approximately equivalent to those of vapor compression heat pump clothes dryers. 36 Because the research for such a thermoelectric heating clothes dryer that produces energy savings and meets consumer expectations for drying cycle time is still in the prototype stage, DOE determined that this technology option would not be practicable to manufacture, install, and service on a scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of any new or amended consumer clothes dryer standards, and did not consider it for further analysis. 36 Patel, V., Boudreaux, P., and Gluesenkamp, K. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Validated Model of a Thermoelectric Heat Pump Clothes Dryer Using Secondary Pumped Loops. Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 184, February 5, 2021. b. Microwave, Electric Only Due to the large energy savings associated with microwave drying, this technology was the subject of a multiyear development effort at the Electric Power Research Institute (“EPRI”) in the mid-1990s. 37 At least one major manufacturer—Whirlpool—developed a countertop-scale version of such a product as recently as 2002, 38 but to date this technology has not been successfully commercialized. 37 S. Ashley. 1998. “Energy-Efficient Appliances,” Mechanical Engineering Magazine, March 1998, pp. 94-97. 38 E. Spagat. 2002. “Whirlpool Goes Portable to Sell Dryers to Gen Y,” Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2002. Microwave drying introduces significant technical and safety issues with potential arcing from metallic objects in the fabric load, including zippers, buttons, or “stray” items such as coins. While efforts have been made to mitigate the conditions that are favorable to arcing or to detect incipient arcing and terminate the cycle, the possibility of fabric damage cannot be completely eliminated. 39 In addition to those consumer utility impacts, these conditions can also pose a safety hazard. For these reasons, microwave drying was not considered further for analysis. 39 J.F. Gerling. 2003. “Microwave Clothes Drying—Technical Solutions to Fundamental Challenges,” Appliance Magazine, April 2003, p. 120. c. Indirect Heating Indirect heating would be viable only in residences that use a hydronic heating system. Also, in order to derive clothes dryer heat energy from a home's heating system, significant plumbing work would be required to circulate heated water through a heat exchanger in the clothes dryer. Therefore, this technology option does not meet the criterion of practicability to install on a scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of any new standard and was not considered for further analysis. d. RF Drying, Electric Only CoolDry, LLC (“CoolDry”) developed an RF clothes dryer prototype, claiming an efficiency of 90 percent, compared to 50 percent for conventional clothes dryers. 40 CoolDry stated that its RF drying technology operates at lower temperatures than do conventional clothes dryers and, because the transfer of energy to clothes is not dependent on convective heat transfer, the RF clothes dryer requires less tumbling and subsequently consumes less energy for drum rotation than a conventional clothes dryer. Because this technology was in the prototype stage at the time it was initially considered and the company is no longer in business, research and development is unlikely to be ongoing. Therefore, DOE determined that this technology option would not be practicable to manufacture, install, and service on a scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of any new or amended consumer clothes dryer standards and did not consider it for further analysis. 40 Cool Dry did not specify the metric or test method used to determine the efficiency of its prototype. e. Ultrasonic Drying, Electric Only Researchers at ORNL have developed an ultrasonic drying prototype that uses piezoelectric transducers to separate water from clothes through water cavitation produced by ultrasonic vibrations. According to their research, the energy imparted to the water must overcome surface tension in order to break the water into droplets, but this energy is substantially less than the latent heat of vaporization of water, which is the primary thermodynamic barrier for conventional evaporation drying. The ORNL researchers anticipate that ultrasonic drying technology will result in an energy factor 41 of greater than 10 and a drying time of less than 20 minutes. 42 Because this technology is still in the prototype stage, however, DOE determined that this technology option would not be practicable to manufacture, install, and service on a scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of any new or amended consumer clothes dryer standards and did not consider it for further analysis. 41 This energy factor incorporates only active mode energy use and not standby mode and off mode energy use. 42 Momen, A. Ultrasonic Clothes Dryer: 2016 Building Technologies Office Peer Review. 2016. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in partnership with the University of Florida and General Electric, p. 2. DOE did not receive any comments in response to the August 2022 NOPR regarding these screened out technology options, and for the reasons discussed, screened out the same technologies for this direct final rule analysis. 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 met all screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's direct final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options: Table IV.3—Retained Design Options for Consumer Clothes Dryers Dryer Control or Drum Upgrades: Improved termination Modified operating conditions Improved air circulation Increased insulation Improved drum design Methods of Exhaust Heat Recovery (vented models only): Recycle exhaust heat Inlet air preheat Inlet air preheat, condensing mode Moisture Removal Options: Heat pump, electric only Modulating heat Component Improvements: Improved motor efficiency Improved fan efficiency Standby Power Improvements: Transformerless Power Supply with Auto-Powerdown DOE 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). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the direct final rule TSD. As previously discussed, on February 14, 2024, DOE received a second joint statement from the same group of stakeholders that submitted the Joint Agreement in which the signatories reaffirmed the standards recommended in the Joint Agreement. 43 In particular, the letter states that the joint stakeholders do not anticipate the recommended standards will negatively affect features or performance. 43 This document is available in the docket at: www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058. C. Engineering Analysis The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of consumer clothes dryers. 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/equipment 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 interpolate to define “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). For this direct final rule, DOE used an efficiency-level approach, supplemented with reverse engineering. This approach involved first testing and then physically disassembling a representative sample of commercially available products, reviewing publicly available cost information, and modeling equipment cost. From this information and through the reverse engineering process, DOE estimated the manufacturer production costs (“MPCs”) for a range of products currently available on the market, considering the design options and the steps manufacturers would likely take to reach a certain efficiency level. As part of this analysis, DOE included test units that represent baseline models, newly introduced units on the market, units with unique configurations, and units with technologies as observed in the technology assessment. The efficiency levels analyzed as part of this engineering analysis are attainable using commercially available clothes dryer technologies, or technologies that have been demonstrated in working prototypes. a. Baseline Efficiency Levels 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. The baseline clothes dryer efficiency levels for this direct final rule differ from the existing energy conservation standards that were established in the 2011 rulemaking analysis primarily due to the difference between the then-current appendix D1, which DOE used to evaluate products in the previous rulemaking, and the present version of appendix D2, established in the October 2021 TP Final Rule and which DOE used as the basis for this analysis. Appendix D2 includes test methods that more accurately measure the effects of automatic cycle termination and that may result in differences in the total measured energy consumption of the test cycle as compared to the test methods in appendix D1. Specifically, for automatic termination control dryers, appendix D2 requires a lower FMC of the test load and does not rely on a field use factor to account for the over-drying energy consumption, instead requiring that the automatic termination drying program run to the end of the cycle. Additionally, appendix D2 contains instructions for the testing of timer dryers, which include a lower FMC of the test load as compared to the version of appendix D1 used for the 2011 rulemaking analysis. For the engineering analysis, DOE began by identifying the efficiency level corresponding to the Federal minimum energy conservation standards for each product class. Due to the test procedure changes adopted in the October 2021 Final Rule, DOE determined the baseline efficiency level representative of minimally compliant products when tested under appendix D2. To identify the appendix D2 baseline levels, DOE tested 22 models that were certified as minimally compliant with the current energy conservation standards, from across all product classes. Because certified performance data are not available for models on the market tested in accordance with both appendix D1 and appendix D2, DOE tested each basic model in its test sample in accordance with appendix D1 and appendix D2 and used the test values for appendix D2 to determine the baseline models in support of this engineering analysis. Due to the differences in the two test procedures previously described, the baseline CEF D2 measured using appendix D2 is numerically lower for each product class than the corresponding CEF D1 value in the current energy conservation standards, though that does not indicate a lower efficiency. The test procedure differences drive the lower baseline CEF D2 values and do not represent a lower efficiency or backsliding. With regard to the vented gas compact product class, DOE is unaware of any currently available commercial products that fall within the vented gas compact product class. To determine the baseline level for this product class, DOE analyzed a vented gas compact-size model that was previously available on the market prior to the effective date of the current energy conservation. DOE's previous testing of that model—which utilized electromechanical controls—suggests that the model would not be compliant with the existing standards. DOE expects that manufacturers would implement electronic controls as a design option to produce vented gas compact clothes dryers that minimally comply with the existing standard. DOE determined the efficiency performance that would be achieved through the addition of electronic controls by applying the same relative efficiency improvement observed with the implementation of electronic controls for standard-size vented gas clothes dryers, as shown in Table IV.8 in section IV.C.1.b of this document. The resulting estimated level of baseline performance for the vented gas compact product class is consistent with the efficiency level recommended by the Joint Agreement for this product class. The baseline efficiency levels considered for this analysis are presented along with the current standards in Table IV.4 and are discussed in more detail in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD. The baseline values are the same as those proposed in the August 2022 NOPR, except for the vented gas compact product class as discussed. Table IV.4—Direct Final Rule Consumer Clothes Dryer Baseline Efficiency Levels Product class CEF D1 (lb/kWh) CEF D2 (lb/kWh) * (i) Electric, Standard (4.4 ft 3 or greater capacity) 3.73 2.20 (ii) Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 3.61 2.36 (iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 3.27 2.00 (iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 cubic ft 3 or greater capacity) 3.30 2.00 (v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 3.30 2.02 (vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft 3 capacity) 2.55 2.03 (vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer 2.08 2.27 * As discussed, the baseline CEF D2 values represent differences in test procedure between appendix D1 and appendix D2 and do not constitute backsliding. CEF D2 baseline efficiency levels as measured under appendix D2 account for differences in the effectiveness of automatic cycle termination. Manufacturers implement automatic termination in a variety of ways, which will impact the representations as measured under appendix D2 and result in a range of possible CEF D2 values, as compared to the CEF D1 values in the existing Federal standards. b. Incremental Efficiency Levels DOE developed incremental efficiency levels by reviewing products currently available on the market and by testing and reverse engineering products in the DOE test sample in support of the direct final rule. For each product class, DOE analyzed several efficiency levels and determined the incremental MPC at each of these levels. DOE initially reviewed data in DOE's Compliance Certification Database (“CCD”) to evaluate the range of efficiencies for consumer clothes dryers currently available on the market. As discussed in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD, non-ENERGY STAR-qualified products ( i.e., generally units with lower-rated efficiencies) are typically tested using appendix D1, while ENERGY STAR-qualified products are required to be tested using appendix D2. As a result, DOE conducted testing on a representative sample of non-ENERGY STAR-qualified products using appendix D2 to determine appropriate initial incremental efficiency levels for each product class. DOE observed that while electronic controls are typically implemented with other design options in this analysis, the improved automatic termination precision offered by switching to electronic controls contributed significantly to an increase in efficiency. This efficiency gain informed the first incremental efficiency levels for most product classes and was noted simply as electronic controls in the design options listed in the tables later in this section. The design options associated with higher efficiency levels were subsequently distinguished according to specific design options DOE found manufacturers used to meet these higher efficiencies. 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. For the vented gas compact product class, no units were available on the market at the time of the analysis whose rated value exceeded the baseline level. Given recent market trends, DOE does not have reason to expect manufacturers to re-introduce compact-size vented gas clothes dryers to the market, regardless of amendments to energy conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE did not consider any higher efficiency levels for this product class. In defining the incremental efficiency levels for the other product classes for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received in response to the incremental efficiency levels proposed in the August 2022 NOPR, including several from commenters who support the Joint Agreement. The CA IOUs supported DOE's decision to adopt the updated max-tech levels as indicative of the growth and maturity of heat pump technologies for vented and ventless products. The CA IOUs further commented that adopting the max-tech levels sets a key precedent for subsequent DOE energy efficiency and non-DOE rulemakings to represent the true potential of a product class. (California IOUs, No. 50 at pp. 4-5) AHAM and Whirlpool disagreed with DOE's tentative determination that the proposed standards in the August 2022 NOPR would allow for electromechanical controls. AHAM and Whirlpool commented that electronic controls are required to enable the technology options for the proposed TSL. Whirlpool further commented that electromechanical control dryers are not sophisticated enough to enable the other technology options that DOE described in the August 2022 NOPR analysis and therefore could not be used effectively with the appendix D2 test procedure. Whirlpool stated that DOE's NOPR analysis missed several key aspects where utility and performance could be lessened in order to meet the proposed standard levels. Whirlpool noted that the average CEF score of the five tested units in the vented electric standard product class with electromechanical controls in the August 2022 NOPR analysis is 2.64 lb/kWh, over 30-percent lower than the proposed standard. AHAM stated that electromechanical controls have consumer utility in that they are easy to use and reduce the overall costs associated with the product, and that requiring electronic controls would result in investment costs for manufacturers and increased purchase prices for consumers. AHAM requested that DOE retain electromechanical controls among a consumer's purchase options as, according to AHAM, they are a desirabl [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%3A2024-04765. Public record. Not legal advice.