Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers

Federal RegisterApr 24, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039]

RIN 1904-AF60

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers

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 dishwashers. In this direct final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is adopting amended energy conservation standards for dishwashers. 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 August 22, 2024. If adverse comment are received by August 12, 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

. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule was approved by the Director as of February 17, 2023. If no such adverse comments are received, compliance with the amended standards established for dishwashers in this direct final rule is required on and after April 23, 2027. 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 May 24, 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-2019-BT-STD-0039.

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

www.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.

Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 306-7097. Email:

Amelia.Whiting@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 and Water 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. Desiccant Drying

b. Reduced Inlet-Water Temperature

c. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Washing

d. Ultrasonic Washing

e. Thermoelectric Heat Pumps

f. Water Re-Use System

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

a. Baseline Efficiency

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

2. Cost Analysis

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Product Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption

4. Energy and Water Prices

a. Energy Prices

b. Water and Wastewater 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 and Water Savings

3. Net Present Value Analysis

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

1. Low-Income Households

2. Senior-Only Households

3. Well-Water Households

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 Dioxide

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

c. Sensitivity Analysis Using EPA's New SC-GHG Estimates

2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

O. Regulatory Impact Analysis

P. Other Comments

1. Non-Regulatory Approaches

2. Test Procedure Usage Factors

3. National Academy of Sciences Report

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 and Water Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

a. Cleaning Performance

b. Drying Performance

c. Cycle Length

d. Water Dilution

e. Equipment Lifetime and Energy Savings

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 Dishwashers Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards

VI. Severability

VII. 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. Materials Incorporated by Reference

N. Congressional Notification

VIII. 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”),

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

established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include dishwashers, the subject of this direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(6))

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.

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 dishwashers.

The adopted standards 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”

), recommends specific energy conservation standards for dishwashers that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE subsequently received letters of support for the Joint Agreement from States—including New York, California, and Massachusetts

—and utilities—including San Diego Gas and Electric (“SDG&E”) and Southern California Edison (“SCE”)

—advocating for the adoption of the recommended standards.

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0055.

Available at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0056.

Available at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0057.

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 a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that contains identical standards 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) expressed in terms of maximum estimated annual energy use (“EAEU”) in kilowatt hours per year (“kWh/yr”) and maximum per cycle water consumption in gallons per cycle (“gal/cycle”) as measured according to DOE's dishwasher test procedure codified at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix C2 (“appendix C2”).

Table I.1 The amended standards recommended in the Joint Agreement are represented as trial standard level (“TSL”) 3 in this document (hereinafter the “Recommended TSL”) and are described in section V.A of this document. The Joint Agreement's standards for dishwashers apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting 3 years after publication of a final rule in the

Federal Register

ER24AP24.000

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the adopted standards on consumers of dishwashers, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).

The average LCC savings are positive for all product classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of dishwashers, which is estimated to be 15.2 years (

see

section IV.F.6 of this document).

The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards (

see

section IV.F.8 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (

see

section IV.F.9 of this document).

ER24AP24.001

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

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022 dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2024 unless explicitly stated otherwise.

The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2024-2056). Using a real discount rate of 8.5 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of dishwashers in the case without amended standards is $735.8 million. Under the adopted standards, which align with the Recommended TSL for dishwashers, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from -20.2 percent to -13.1 percent, which represents a change in INPV of approximately −$148.8 million to −$96.7 million. In order to bring products into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $126.9 million.

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

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for dishwashers would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for dishwashers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-2056), amount to 0.31 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a savings of 2.6 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).

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.1 of this document.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the standards for dishwashers ranges from $1.23 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $2.90 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for dishwashers purchased during the period 2027-2056.

In addition,

the adopted standards for dishwashers 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 9.48 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

”), 1.41 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO

”), 22.37 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO

”), 98.97 thousand tons of methane (“CH

”), 0.06 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N

O”), and 0.01 tons of mercury (“Hg”).

A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO

are presented in short tons.

DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the

Annual Energy Outlook 2023

(

“AEO2023”

AEO2023

reflects, to the extent possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022, including the Inflation Reduction Act.

See

section IV.K of this document for further discussion of

AEO2023

assumptions that affect air pollutant emissions.

Estimated climate-related benefits are provided in compliance with Executive Order 12866.

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (“GHG”) using four different estimates of the social cost of CO

(“SC-CO

”), the social cost of methane (“SC-CH

”), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SC-N

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”).

The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $0.54 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. DOE notes, however, that the adopted standards would be economically justified even without inclusion of monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.

To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses values that are based on the

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990

published 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

and NO

emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”),

as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE did not monetize the reduction in mercury emissions because the quantity is very small. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $0.37 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.94 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.

DOE is currently only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate matter (“PM

2.5

”) concentrations from two precursors (SO

and NO

), and from changes in ambient ozone from one precursor (NO

), but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions.

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.

DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions reductions resulting from the considered 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 dishwashers. 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.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

ER24AP24.002

ER24AP24.003

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

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.

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 dishwashers shipped in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of dishwashers shipped in 2027-2056. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate.

Estimates of total benefits are presented for all four SC-GHG discount rates in section V.B.8 of this document.

As discussed in section IV.L.1 of this document, DOE agrees with the IWG that using consumption-based discount rates (

e.g.,

3 percent) is appropriate when discounting the value of climate impacts. Combining climate effects discounted at an appropriate consumption-based discount rate with other costs and benefits discounted at a capital-based rate (

i.e.,

7 percent) is reasonable because of the different nature of the types of benefits being measured.

Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the adopted standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO

and SO

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 $14.0 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $127.2 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $29.0 million in climate benefits, and $34.3 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $176.4 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $14.0 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $171.2 million in reduced operating costs, $29.0 million in climate benefits, and $50.8 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $237.0 million per year.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

ER24AP24.004

ER24AP24.005

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is described in sections IV.J.3 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

and SO

reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the standards for dishwashers is $14.0 million per year in increased dishwasher costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $127.2 million in reduced dishwasher operating costs, $29.0 million in climate benefits, and $34.3 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $176.4 million per year. DOE notes that the net benefits are substantial even in the absence of the climate benefits

and DOE would adopt the same standards in the absence of such benefits.

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.

Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).

As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 0.31 quads FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 2.1 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce cumulative CO

emissions by 9.48 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.

The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039/document.

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of four TSLs for dishwashers. The TSLs and their associated benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C.1 of this document, DOE has tentatively

determined that TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.

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 dishwashers.

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 dishwashers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(6)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation design standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(1) and (10)(A)), and directed DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (10)(B)) 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))

In establishing energy conservation standards with both energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers manufactured after 2010, Congress also directed DOE to “determin[e] whether to amend” those standards. 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B). Congress's directive, in section 6295(g)(10)(B), to consider whether “to amend the standards for dishwashers” refers to “the standards” established in the immediately preceding section, 6295(g)(10)(A). There, Congress established energy conservation standards with

both

energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers. Indeed, the energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers (both standard and compact) are each contained within a single subparagraph.

See Id.

Everything in section 6295(g)(10) suggests that Congress intended both of those twin standards to be evaluated when it came time, “[n]ot later than January 1, 2015,” to consider amending them. (

Id.

6295(g)(10)(B)(i)) Accordingly, DOE understands its authority, under section 6295(g)(10)(B), to include consideration of amended energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers.

DOE similarly understands its obligation under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m) to amend “standards” for covered products to include amending both the energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers. Neither section 6295(g)(10)(B) nor section 6295(m) limit their application to “energy use standards.” Rather, they direct DOE to consider amending “the standards,” 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B), or simply “standards,”

Id.

6295(m)(1)(B), which may include both energy use standards and water use standards.

Finally, DOE is promulgating these standards as a direct final rule pursuant to section 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). That section also extends broadly to any “energy or water conservation standard” without qualification. Thus, pursuant to section 6295(p)(4), DOE may, so long as the other relevant conditions are satisfied, promulgate a direct final rule that includes water use performance standards for a covered product like dishwashers, where Congress has already established energy and water use performance standards.

DOE is aware that the definition of “energy conservation standard,” in section 6291(6), expressly references water use only for four products specifically named: showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals.

See Id.

However, DOE does not read the language in 6291(6) as fully delineating the scope of DOE's authority under EPCA. Rather, as is required of agencies in applying a statute, individual provisions, including section 6291(6) of EPCA, must be read in the context of the statute as a whole.

The energy conservation program was initially limited to addressing the energy use, meaning electricity and fossil fuels, of 13 covered products (

See

sections 321 and 322 of the Energy and Policy Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, 89 Stat 871 (December 22, 1975)) Since its inception, Congress has expanded the scope of the energy conservation program several times, including by adding covered products, prescribing energy conservation standards for various products, and by addressing water use for certain covered products. For example, in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress amended the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C. 6292 to include showerheads, faucets, water closets and urinals and expanded DOE's authority to regulate water use for these products. (

See

Sec. 123, Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, 106 Stat 2776 (Oct. 24, 1992)). When it did so, Congress also made corresponding changes to the definition of “consumer product” (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)), the definition of “energy conservation standard” (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)), the section governing the promulgation of test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), the criteria for prescribing new or amended energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), and elsewhere in EPCA.

Later, Congress further expanded the scope of the energy conservation program several times. For instance, Congress added products and energy conservation standards directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295, the section of EPCA that contains statutorily prescribed standards as well as DOE's standard-setting authorities.

See

42 U.S.C. 6295(a) (stating that the “purposes of this section are to—(1) provide Federal energy conservation standards applicable to covered products; and (2) authorize the Secretary to prescribe amended or new energy conservation standards for each type (or class) of covered product.”)). When Congress added these new standards and standard-setting authorities to 42 U.S.C. 6295 after the Energy Policy Act of 1992, it often did so without making any conforming changes to other provisions in EPCA,

e.g.

, sections 6291 or 6292. For example, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress prescribed standards by statute, or gave DOE the authority to set standards for, battery chargers, external power supplies, ceiling fans, ceiling fan light kits, beverage vending machines, illuminated exit signs, torchieres, low voltage dry-type distribution transformers, traffic signal modules and pedestrian modules, certain lamps, dehumidifiers, and commercial prerinse spray valves in 42 U.S.C. 6295 without updating the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C. 6292. (

See

Sec. 135, Energy Policy Act of 2005, 119 Stat 594 (Aug. 8, 2005)).

Congress also expanded the scope of the energy conservation program by directly adding water use performance standards for certain products to 42 U.S.C. 6295. For example, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress added a water use performance standard (but no energy use performance standard) for commercial prerinse spray valves (“CPSVs”) and did so without updating the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C. 6292 to include CPSVs and without adding CPSVs to the list of enumerated products with water use performance standards in the “energy conservation standard” definition in 42 U.S.C. 6291(6). In the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Congress amended 42 U.S.C. 6295 by prescribing energy conservation

standards for residential clothes washers and dishwashers that included both energy and water use performance standards. (

See

Sec. 301, EISA 2007, Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007)). Again, when it did so, Congress did not add these products to the list of enumerated products with water use performance standards in the definition of “energy conservation standard” in 42 U.S.C. 6291(6).

In considering how to treat these products and standards that Congress has directly added to 42 U.S.C. 6295 without making conforming changes to the rest of the statute, including the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C. 6292, and the water-use products in the definition of an “energy conservation standard,” DOE construes the statute as a whole. When Congress added products and standards directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295 it must have meant those products to be covered products and those standards to be energy conservation standards, given that the purpose of 42 U.S.C. 6295 is to provide “energy conservation standards applicable to covered products” and to “authorize the Secretary to prescribe amended or new energy conservation standards for each type (or class) of covered product.” Elsewhere in EPCA, the statute's references to covered products and energy conservation standards can only be read coherently as including the covered products and energy conservation standards Congress added directly to section 6295, even if Congress did not make conforming edits to 6291 or 6292. For example, manufacturers are prohibited from “distribut[ing] in commerce any new

covered product

which is not in conformity with an applicable

energy conservation standard.”

(42 U.S.C. 6302(a)(5) (emphasis added)) It would defeat congressional intent to allow a manufacturer to distribute a product,

e.g.

, a CPSV or ceiling fan, that violates an applicable energy conservation standard that Congress prescribed simply because Congress added the product directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295 without also updating the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C. 6292(a). In addition, preemption in EPCA is based on “the effective date of an

energy conservation standard

established in or prescribed under section 6295 of this title for any

covered product.”

(42 U.S.C. 6297(c) (emphasis added)) Nothing in EPCA suggests that standards Congress adopted in 6295 lack preemptive effect, merely because Congress did not make conforming amendments to 6291, 6292, or 6293.

It would similarly defeat congressional intent for a manufacturer to be permitted to distribute a covered product,

e.g.

, a residential clothes washer or dishwasher, that violates a water use performance standard because Congress added the standard to 42 U.S.C. 6295 without also updating the definition of energy conservation standard in 42 U.S.C. 6291(6). By prescribing directly, in 6295(g)(10), energy conservation standards for dishwashers that include both energy and water use performance standards, Congress intended that energy conservation standards for dishwashers include both energy use and water use.

DOE recognizes that some might argue that Congress's specific reference in section 6291(6) to water standards for showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals could “create a negative implication” that energy conservations standards for other covered products may not include water use standards.

See Marx

Gen. Revenue Corp.,

568 U.S. 371, 381 (2013). “The force of any negative implication, however, depends on context.”

Id.; see also NLRB

SW Gen., Inc.,

580 U.S. 288, 302 (2017) (“The

expressio unius

canon applies only when circumstances support a sensible inference that the term left out must have been meant to be excluded.” (alterations and quotation marks omitted)). In this context, the textual and structural cues discussed above show that Congress did not intend to exclude from the definition of energy conservation standard the water use performance standards that it specifically prescribed, and directed DOE to amend, in section 6295. To conclude otherwise would negate the plain text of 6295(g)(10). Furthermore, to the extent the definition of energy conservation standards in section 6291(6), which was last amended in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, could be read as in conflict with the energy and water use performance standards prescribed by Congress in EISA 2007, any such conflict should be resolved in favor of the more recently enacted statute.

See United States

Estate of Romani,

523 U.S. 517, 530-531 (1998) (“[A] specific policy embodied in a later federal statute should control our construction of the priority statute, even though it had not been expressly amended.”). Accordingly, based on a complete reading of the statute, DOE has determined that products and standards added directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295 are appropriately considered “covered products” and “energy conservation standards” for the purposes of applying the various provisions in EPCA.

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 the 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. (

See

42 U.S.C. 6297(d))

Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(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 dishwashers appear at title 10 of the CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C1 (“appendix C1”) and appendix C2.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including dishwashers. Any new or amended standards 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))

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 the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

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 must 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 EISA 2007, 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 and standards for dishwashers 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 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, 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 May 30, 2012 (“May 2012 Direct Final Rule”), DOE adopted the current energy conservation standards for dishwashers manufactured on or after May 30, 2013, consistent with the levels proposed in a letter submitted to DOE by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer groups on July 30, 2010. 77 FR 31918, 31918-31919. This collective set of comments, titled “Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related Matters for Specified Appliances” (the “July 2010 Joint Petition”),

recommended specific energy conservation standards for dishwashers that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 77 FR 31918, 31919. The July 2010 Joint Petition proposed energy conservation standard levels for the standard-size and compact-size dishwasher product classes based on the same capacity definitions that existed at that time. 77 FR 31918, 31926. In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of multiple standard levels for dishwashers, including a standard level that corresponded to the recommended levels in the July 2010 Joint Petition, and determined that the levels recommended in the Joint Petition satisfied the EPCA requirements set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 77 FR 31918, 31921.

DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060-0001.

In a final determination published on December 13, 2016 (“December 2016 Final Determination”), DOE concluded that amended energy conservation standards would not be economically justified at any level above the standards established in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, and therefore determined not to amend the standards. 81 FR 90072. The current energy and water conservation standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR part 430, § 430.32(f), and are repeated in Table II.1. The currently applicable DOE test procedure for dishwashers appears at appendix C1.

ER24AP24.006

The regulatory text at 10 CFR 430.32(f) references the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”) standard AHAM DW-1-2020

to define the items in the test load that comprise the serving pieces and each place setting. The number of serving pieces and place settings help determine the capacity of the dishwasher, which is used to determine the applicable product class.

2. Current Test Procedure

On December 22, 2021, DOE published a test procedure NOPR (“December 2021 TP NOPR”) proposing amendments to the dishwasher test procedure at appendix C1 and a new test procedure at appendix C2. 86 FR 72738. On January 18, 2023, DOE published a final rule amending the test procedure at appendix C1 and establishing a new test procedure at appendix C2 (“January 2023 TP Final Rule”). 88 FR 3234. The new appendix C2 specifies updated annual cycles and low-power mode hours, both of which are used to calculate the EAEU metric, and introduces a minimum cleaning performance threshold to validate the selected test cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3236.

Subsequently, on July 27, 2023, DOE published a final rule adding clarifying instructions to the dishwasher test procedure at appendix C1 regarding the allowable dosing options for each type of detergent; clarifying the existing detergent reporting requirements; and adding an enforcement provision for dishwashers to specify the detergent and dosing method that DOE would use for any enforcement testing of dishwasher models certified in accordance with the applicable dishwasher test procedure prior to July 17, 2023 (

i.e.,

the date by which the January 2023 TP Final Rule became mandatory for product testing). 88 FR 48351.

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)) In general, a consumer-acceptable level of cleaning performance (

i.e.,

a representative average use cycle) can be easier to achieve through the use of higher amounts of energy and water use during the dishwasher cycle. Conversely, maintaining acceptable cleaning performance can be more difficult as energy and water levels are reduced. Improving one aspect of dishwasher performance, such as reducing energy and/or water use as a result of energy conservation standards, may require a trade-off with one or more other aspects of performance, such as cleaning performance. 88 FR 3234, 3250-3251. As discussed, the currently applicable energy conservation standards for dishwashers are based on appendix C1, which does not prescribe a method for testing dishwasher cleaning performance.

The January 2023 TP Final Rule established a new test procedure at appendix C2, which includes provisions for a minimum cleaning index threshold of 70 to validate the selected test cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3261. The cleaning index is calculated based on the number and size of particles remaining on each item of the test load at the completion of a dishwasher cycle as specified in AHAM DW-2-2020.

Items that do not have any soil particles are scored 0 (

i.e.,

completely clean). No single item in the test load can exceed a score of 9. Individual scores for each item in the test load are combined as a weighted average to calculate the per cycle cleaning index. A cleaning index of 100 indicates a completely clean test load.

Id.

at 88 FR 3255. In the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE specified that the

cleaning index is calculated by only scoring soil particles on all items in the test load and that spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on glassware are not included in the cleaning index calculation.

Id.

at 88 FR 3248. Manufacturers must use the results of testing under the new appendix C2 to determine compliance with the energy conservation standards adopted in this direct final rule. Accordingly, DOE used appendix C2 as finalized in the January 2023 TP Final Rule as the basis for the analysis in this direct final rule.

Id.

at 88 FR 3234.

In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed a cleaning index threshold of 65 calculated by scoring soil particles on all items as well as spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on glassware. 86 FR 72738, 72756, 72758. In the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE noted that the specified cleaning index threshold of 70 is equivalent to the cleaning index threshold of 65 that was proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR. 88 FR 3234, 3261.

DOE adopted a minimum cleaning performance threshold in appendix C2 to determine if a dishwasher, when tested according to the DOE test procedure, “completely washes a normally soiled load of dishes,” so as to better represent consumer use of the product (

i.e.,

to produce test results that are more representative of an average consumer use cycle). 88 FR 3234, 3253, 3255. Based on the data available, DOE determined that the cleaning performance threshold provides a reasonable proxy for when consumers are likely to be satisfied with performance on the normal cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3261. The cleaning index threshold established as part of the new appendix C2 ensures that energy and water savings are being realized for products that comply with the amended energy conservation standards for dishwashers established by this direct final rule. 88 FR 3234, 3253, 3254.

The standards enacted by this direct final rule are expressed in terms of the EAEU and water consumption metrics as measured according to the newly established test procedure contained in appendix C2.

3. The Joint Agreement

On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (

i.e.,

the Joint Agreement) recommending standards for dishwashers, that was submitted by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.

In addition to the recommended standards for dishwashers, the Joint Agreement also included separate recommendations for several other covered products.

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 the Joint Agreement is contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes to adopt all 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.

The signatories to the Joint Agreement include the AHAM, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, ASAP, 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; 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.

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 dishwashers with a cycle time for the normal cycle of 60 minutes or less, top-loading residential clothes washers and certain classes of consumer clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, and front-loading residential clothes washers 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

United States Department of Energy,

90 F.4th 461 (5th Cir. 2024).

On February 14, 2024, following the Fifth Circuit's decision in

Louisiana

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.

In the letter, the signatories clarified that “short-cycle” product classes for residential clothes washers, consumer 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 dishwashers.

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0059.

The Joint Agreement recommends standard levels for dishwashers as presented in Table II.2. (Joint Agreement, No. 55 at p. 5) Details of the Joint Agreement recommendations for other products are provided in the Joint Agreement posted in the docket.

The Joint Agreement is available in the docket at

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0055.

ER24AP24.007

DOE notes that it was conducting a rulemaking to consider amending the standards for dishwashers when the Joint Agreement was submitted. As part of that process, on January 24, 2022, DOE published a notification of a webinar and availability of preliminary technical support document (“January 2022 Preliminary Analysis”). 87 FR 3450. Subsequently, on May 19, 2023, DOE published a NOPR and announced a public meeting (“May 2023 NOPR”) seeking comment on its proposed amended standard to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 88 FR 32514. DOE held a public meeting on June 8, 2023, to discuss and receive comments on the NOPR and NOPR TSD. The NOPR TSD is available at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0032.

Although DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement as a direct final rule and no longer proceeding with its own 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 own prior rulemaking will include a parenthetical reference that provides the location of the item in the public record.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for dishwashers. (Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, 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 parties 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 the final rule revoking two final rules that established the 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

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.”

That is because, as the letter explained, such product classes “did not exist” at the time of the Joint Agreement.

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0059.

In a recently published request for information (“RFI”), 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. 89 FR 17338 (March 11, 2024). 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. . . .”

The current standards applicable to any products within the scope of that proceeding remain unchanged by this rule.

See

10 CFR 430.32(f). 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 dishwashers: standard-size and compact-size. Although these product classes were not further divided by cycle time, DOE understands them to exclude standard-size dishwashers with an average cycle time of 60 minutes or less. As noted previously, any such “short-cycle” dishwashers will be considered in the Remand Proceeding; the current standards applicable to such “short-cycle” dishwashers 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 standard-size and compact-size dishwashers that is not distinguished by cycle time and is representative of all dishwashers currently on the market today. To the extent that any short-cycle products were included in this data and analysis, DOE believes the amount of such data is negligible.

A. Scope of Coverage

This direct final rule covers those consumer products that meet the definition of “dishwasher” as codified at 10 CFR 430.2.

Dishwasher means a cabinet-like appliance which with the aid of water and detergent, washes, rinses, and dries (when a drying process is included) dishware, glassware, eating utensils, and most cooking utensils by chemical, mechanical and/or electrical means and discharges to the plumbing drainage system. 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 16 manufacturers of dishwashers.

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 the gas and electric utility, SDG&E, and the 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.

These companies include: Asko Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier Company; LG Electronics; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby Corporation; 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. 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. Section 7(b)(2) through (5) of appendix A. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for dishwashers, 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 a new or amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for dishwashers, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.1.b of this document and in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to dishwashers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-2056).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of dishwashers 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.

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 dishwashers. 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 full-fuel-cycle (“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.

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.

The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).

2. Significance of Savings

To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.

For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors.

As stated, the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are projected to result in national energy savings of 0.31 quads FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 2.1 million homes. Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has 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 rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of potential new or amended standards on manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturing impact analysis (“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 establishing product classes, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards adopted in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the dishwashers 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 notice.

f. Need for National Energy and Water 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.9 of this document.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to dishwashers. 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 dishwashers 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?D=EERE-019-BT-STD-0039.

Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the EIA's

Annual Energy Outlook

(“

AEO

”) 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 dishwashers. 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 two product classes for dishwashers. (Joint Agreement, No. 55 at p. 8) In this direct final rule, DOE is adopting the product classes from the Joint Agreement, as follows:

(1) Standard-size dishwashers (≥8 place settings plus 6 serving pieces); and

(2) Compact-size dishwashers (<8 place settings plus 6 serving pieces).

Id.

Where the place settings are as specified in AHAM DW-1-2020 and the test load is as specified in section 2.4 of appendix C2.

Id.

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. Nevertheless, 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.

DOE's findings in this regard are discussed in detail in section V.B.4 of this document.

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 20 technology options, consistent with the table of technology options presented in the May 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 32514, 32527-32528. In general, technology options for dishwashers may reduce energy use alone, or reduce both energy and water use together. Most dishwashers in the United States use as their water source a hot water line that is typically tapped from the hot water line serving the adjacent kitchen faucet. Because the energy used to heat the water consumed by the dishwasher is included as part of the EAEU metric, technologies that decrease water use also inherently decrease energy use. Chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final rule includes a detailed list and descriptions of all technology options identified for dishwashers, including a discussion of how each technology option reduces energy use only or both energy and water use together.

Among the technology options identified for dishwashers, the following reduce energy use only (

i.e.,

they reduce energy use without directly reducing water use): condensation drying, including use of a stainless steel tub; desiccant drying; fan/jet drying; improved motor efficiency; increased insulation; low-standby-loss electronic controls; reduced inlet-water temperature; thermoelectric heat pumps; ultrasonic washing; and variable-speed motors.

The following technology options reduce both energy and water use together (

i.e.,

they reduce water use, thereby also inherently reducing energy use): control strategies; flow-through heating; improved fill control; improved food filter; improved spray-arm geometry; microprocessor controls and fuzzy logic, including adaptive or soil-sensing controls; modified sump geometry, with and without dual pumps; super-critical carbon dioxide washing; variable washing pressures and flow rates; and water re-use system.

In developing the list of technology options for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received in response to the May 2023 NOPR. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) noted

that variable-speed pump motors reduce energy consumption by allowing the dishwasher to operate at the most suitable flow rate for each specific phase of the cleaning process. (Samsung, No. 52 at p. 2) Samsung agreed with DOE that enhancements in dishwasher components also contribute to energy efficiency, especially advanced technologies such as electronic and soil-sensing controls. Samsung commented that the technology options identified by DOE are achievable and can be implemented by manufacturers to significantly improve energy efficiency, reduce resource consumption, and promote sustainability while maintaining cleaning performance that consumers expect. (Samsung, No. 52 at pp. 2-3) As noted, DOE has maintained the technology options discussed in the May 2023 NOPR.

Available at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0052.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:

(1)

Technological feasibility.

Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing prototypes will not be considered further.

(2)

Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.

If it is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.

(3)

Impacts on product utility.

If a technology is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.

(4)

Safety of technologies.

If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further.

(5)

Unique-pathway proprietary technologies.

If a technology has proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).

In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis.

The subsequent sections of this document discuss 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. The results of the screening analysis are discussed in greater detail in chapter 4 of the TSD for this direct final rule.

1. Screened-Out Technologies

The following sections detail the technology options that were screened out for this direct final rule, and the reasons why they were eliminated.

a. Desiccant Drying

Desiccant drying relies on a material such as zeolite

to adsorb moisture to aid in the drying process and reduce drying energy consumption. DOE is aware of dishwashers from one manufacturer on the market in the United States that use desiccant drying.

Zeolite is a highly porous aluminosilicate mineral that adsorbs moisture and releases heat to aid in the drying process.

See chapter 4, section 4.2.1.1 of the January 2022 Preliminary TSD.

DOE has screened out desiccant drying from further consideration because it is a unique-pathway proprietary technology. Desiccant drying is a patented technology, and although multiple manufacturers hold patents for dishwasher designs with desiccant drying features, DOE is concerned that this technology option is not available for all manufacturers.

b. Reduced Inlet-Water Temperature

Reduced inlet-water temperature requires that dishwashers tap the cold water line for their water supply. Because most dishwashers in the United States tap the hot water line, this technology option would require significant alteration of existing dishwasher installations in order to

accommodate newly purchased units incorporating this technology option. Therefore, DOE has determined that it would not be practicable to install this technology on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of an amended standard.

c. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Washing

Supercritical carbon dioxide washing, which uses supercritical carbon dioxide instead of conventional detergent and water to wash dishes, is currently being researched. Given that this technology is in the research stage, DOE has determined that it would not be practicable to manufacture, install and service this technology on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of an amended standard. Furthermore, because this technology is in the research stage, it is not yet possible to assess whether it would have any adverse impacts on equipment utility to consumers or equipment availability, or any adverse impacts on consumers' health or safety.

d. Ultrasonic Washing

A dishwasher using ultrasonic waves to generate a cleaning mist was produced for the Japanese market in 2002; however, this model is no longer available on the market. Available information indicates that the use of a mist with ion generation instead of water with detergent would decrease cleaning performance, impacting consumer utility.

Ultrasonic dishwashing based upon soiled-dish immersion in a fluid that is then excited by ultrasonic waves has not been demonstrated. In an immersion-based ultrasonic dishwasher, standing ultrasonic waves within the washing cavity and the force of bubble cavitation implosion can damage fragile dishware. Because no manufacturers currently produce consumer ultrasonic dishwashers, it is impossible to assess whether this technology option would have any impacts on consumers' health or safety, or product availability.

Based on this information, DOE has screened out both identified product types that incorporate the ultrasonic washing technology option.

e. Thermoelectric Heat Pumps

The thermoelectric heat pump system aims to extract waste heat from drain water and recover heat normally lost during the drying process, and apply it to the washing, rinsing, and drying phases, effectively saving energy. The technology is not commercially available yet as the technology is still in the research phase. Therefore, DOE has determined that it would not be practicable to manufacture, install and service this technology on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of the amended standards. Furthermore, because this technology is in the research stage, it is not yet possible to assess whether it would have any adverse impacts on equipment utility to consumers or equipment availability, or any adverse impacts on consumers' health or safety.

f. Water Re-Use System

This system saves water from the final rinse of a given dishwasher cycle for use in a subsequent dishwasher cycle. A water re-use system dishwasher also performs “drain out” and “clean out” cycles if the dishwasher is not operated for a certain period of time. Both “drain out” and “clean out” events consume additional water and energy during the subsequent cycle, even though such a system saves water and energy consumption overall.

DOE has screened out this technology option as it has determined that leaking and contamination from a water holding tank could potentially present negative health or safety impacts.

2. Remaining Technologies

Through a review of each technology, DOE concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 of this document met all five 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:

Technology options that reduce energy use only:

condensation drying, including use of a stainless steel tub; fan/jet drying; improved motor efficiency; increased insulation; low-standby-loss electronic controls; and variable-speed motors.

Technology options that reduce both energy and water use together:

control strategies; flow-through heating; improved fill control; improved food filter; improved spray-arm geometry; microprocessor controls and fuzzy logic, including adaptive or soil-sensing controls; modified sump geometry, with and without dual pumps; and variable washing pressures and flow rates.

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.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of dishwashers. 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 dishwasher class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the dishwasher 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 analysis, DOE used a combination of the efficiency-level and design-option approach. This approach involved physically disassembling commercially available products, reviewing publicly available cost information, and modeling equipment cost. From this information, DOE estimated the manufacturer production costs (“MPCs”) for a range of products currently available on the market. DOE then considered the incremental steps manufacturers may take to reach higher efficiency levels. In its modeling, DOE started with the baseline MPC and added the expected design options at each higher efficiency level to estimate incremental MPCs. By doing this, the engineering analysis did not factor in the additional higher-cost features with no impact on efficiency that are included in some models. However, at efficiency levels where the product designs significantly deviated from the baseline product, DOE used the efficiency-level approach to determine an MPC estimate, while removing the costs associated with non-efficiency-related components or features. DOE also provides further discussion on the design options and efficiency improvements in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

a. Baseline Efficiency

For each dishwasher product 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 dishwasher class represents the characteristics of a dishwasher typical of that class (

e.g.,

capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.

For dishwashers, DOE identified products available on the market rated at the current energy conservation standards levels for both standard-size and compact-size dishwasher product classes. Accordingly, DOE analyzed these products as baseline units. DOE uses the baseline unit for comparison in several phases of the direct final rule analyses, including the engineering analysis, LCC analysis, PBP analysis, and NIA. To determine energy and water savings that will result from an amended energy conservation standard, DOE compares energy and water consumption at each of the higher energy efficiency levels to the energy and water consumption of the baseline unit. Similarly, to determine the changes in price to the consumer that will result from an amended energy conservation standard, DOE compares the price of a unit at each higher efficiency level to the price of a unit at the baseline. Additional details on the selection of baseline units may be found in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD. In the May 2023 NOPR, DOE updated the baseline efficiency level for the compact-size dishwasher product class, when using appendix C2, from 178 kWh/year estimated in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis to 191 kWh/year. 88 FR 32514, 32530. In the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE translated the current compact-size product class standard level of 222 kWh/year, which is based on appendix C1, to an EAEU based on appendix C2 using the baseline standby power use estimate of 2.3 watts from the December 2016 Final Determination (

see

chapter 7 of the December 2016 Final Determination TSD).

Id. at

32531. However, based on more recent testing of compact-size dishwashers, DOE determined in its analysis for the May 2023 NOPR that current baseline compact-size dishwashers consume 0.5 watts in standby mode. Using this updated standby power value to translate 222 kWh/year from appendix C1 to appendix C2, DOE calculated an updated baseline EAEU value of 191 kWh/year for compact-size dishwashers.

Id.

Accordingly, in the May 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed the baseline compact-size dishwasher efficiency level to be 191 kWh/year and 3.5 gal/cycle.

Id.

Table IV.1 presents the baseline levels identified for each dishwasher product class in the May 2023 NOPR.

To translate the current dishwasher EAEU standards from appendix C1 to appendix C2, DOE separated the EAEU into annual active mode energy use and annual standby mode energy use. DOE multiplied the annual active mode energy use by 184 cycles/year and divided by 215 cycles/year, then added back the annual standby energy use to determine updated EAEU values based on 184 annual cycles.

ER24AP24.008

DOE sought comment on the baseline efficiency levels analyzed in the May 2023 NOPR for each product class. 88 FR 32514, 32531. DOE did not receive any comments related to the selected baseline efficiency levels, including the updated baseline efficiency level for compact-size dishwashers in the May 2023 NOPR. DOE therefore used the baseline efficiency levels from the May 2023 NOPR in its analysis for this direct final rule.

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

Using the efficiency-level approach, the higher 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 this approach, DOE identified four efficiency levels beyond the baseline for standard-size dishwashers and two for the compact-size product class. At each higher efficiency level, both energy use and water use decrease through the implementation of combinations of design options that individually either reduce energy use alone, or reduce both energy and water use together, as

discussed previously in section IV.A.2 of this document. Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides a detailed discussion of the specific design changes that DOE believes manufacturers would typically use to meet each higher efficiency level considered in this engineering analysis, including a discussion of whether such design changes would reduce energy use only, or reduce both energy and water use together.

In defining the higher efficiency levels for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received in response to the higher efficiency levels proposed in the May 2023 NOPR.

Table IV.2 and Table IV.3 show the efficiency levels DOE evaluated for standard-size and compact-size dishwashers in the May 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 32514, 32534-32535.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

ER24AP24.009

ER24AP24.010

For standard-size dishwashers, EL 1 corresponded to the ENERGY STAR Version 6.0

(“ENERGY STAR V. 6.0”) level, EL 2 corresponded to a gap-fill efficiency level between ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 and ENERGY STAR V. 7.0, and EL 3 corresponded to the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 level (which was also the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient criteria in 2022 and 2023). For compact-size dishwashers, EL 1 corresponded to the ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 level. For both standard-size and compact-size dishwashers, the max-tech efficiency level corresponded to the highest efficiency unit available on the market at that time, excluding from consideration models that rely on technologies that were screened out previously. 88 FR 32514, 32534-32535. In the May 2023 NOPR, DOE requested feedback on the efficiency levels analyzed for each product class in this proposal. 88 FR 32514, 32335. DOE did not receive any comments related to the selected efficiency levels. DOE therefore used the baseline and incremental efficiency levels from the May 2023 NOPR in its analysis for this direct final rule.

ENERGY STAR Version 6.0 Program Requirements available at:

www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Residential%20Dishwasher%20Version%206.0%20Final%20Program%20Requirements_0.pdf

For the reasons discussed, DOE analyzed for this direct final rule the efficiency levels for standard-size and compact-size dishwashers that were proposed in the May 2023 NOPR, as reproduced in Table IV.4 and Table IV.5, respectively.

ER24AP24.011

ER24AP24.012

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

DOE notes that the compact-size max-tech unit that was analyzed in the May 2023 NOPR was not included in DOE's Compliance Certification Database (“CCD”) as of September 2023. Models that are discontinued over the course of a DOE rulemaking timeline remain applicable in conducting the analysis in accordance with EPCA requirements because such models incorporate technologically feasible design options that manufacturers may use to achieve the corresponding efficiency levels in commercial products. The CCD included models that exceed the efficiency of the max-tech unit analyzed in the May 2023 NOPR; however, for these units, there is a discrepancy between the rated EAEU in DOE's CCD and the EAEU listed on the model's EnergyGuide label,

therefore, DOE did not consider these units for its max-tech analysis. Accordingly, DOE has retained the same compact-size max-tech unit analyzed in this direct final rule as that identified in the May 2023 NOPR.

The CCD lists models with an EAEU of 114 kWh/year and water consumption of 1.6 gallons/cycle. However, the EnergyGuide label for these units lists the EAEU as 154 kWh/year and water consumption of 1.8 gallons/cycle. Accordingly, DOE did not consider this unit as the max-tech unit for this final rule analysis.

2. Cost Analysis

The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the dishwasher on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:

• Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.

• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) to develop the bill of materials for the product.

• Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise impractical (

e.g.,

large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and other commercial channels.

In this direct final rule, DOE conducted the analysis using the physical teardown approach. For each product class, DOE tore down a representative sample of models spanning the entire range of efficiency levels, as well as multiple manufacturers within each product class. DOE aggregated the results so that the cost-efficiency relationship developed for each product class reflects DOE's assessment of a market-representative “path” to achieve each higher efficiency level. The resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the MPC estimates.

To account for manufacturers' profit margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose combined product range includes dishwashers.

See

section IV.J.2.d of this document and chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for additional detail on the manufacturer markup.

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

To develop the incremental MPCs associated with improving product efficiency for each product class, DOE started with the baseline unit cost model and added the expected changes associated with improving efficiency at each higher efficiency level. By doing this, DOE excluded the costs of any non-efficiency related components from the more efficient units.

Table IV.6 shows the baseline MPCs for standard-size and compact-size dishwashers estimated for the May 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 32514, 32536. Table IV.7 and Table IV.8 show the incremental

MPCs from the baseline developed in the May 2023 NOPR for standard-size and compact-size dishwashers, respectively, in 2022 dollars.

Id.

at 88 FR 32536-32537.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

ER24AP24.013

ER24AP24.014

ER24AP24.015

For this direct final rule, DOE updated the underlying raw material and component prices used in its cost model to reflect raw material and component prices as of March 2023. Table IV.9 presents the baseline MPCs for each product class as determined for this final rule, in 2023 dollars. Table IV.10 and Table IV.11 provide the incremental MPCs for each efficiency level for both product classes as determined for this final rule.

ER24AP24.016

ER24AP24.017

ER24AP24.018

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

The detailed description of DOE's determination of costs for baseline and higher efficiency levels is provided in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

D. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (

e.g.,

retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit margin.

DOE considered two distribution channels through which dishwashers move from manufacturers to consumers. The majority of dishwasher sales go through the direct retailer channel, in which manufacturers sell the products directly to retailers, who then sell to consumers. This direct retailer channel accounts for 85 percent of the dishwasher market. The rest of the market goes through a separate distribution channel, in which manufacturers sell the products to wholesalers, who in turn sell the products to general contractors, then to consumers. The main parties in the post-manufacturer distribution channels are retailers, wholesalers, and general contractors.

DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards.

Because the projected price of standards-compliant products is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.

DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups. Specifically, DOE used the 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the “electronics and appliance stores” sector to develop retailer markups.

US Census Bureau, Annual Retail Trade Survey. 2017.

www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts.html

For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received regarding the markups analysis conducted for the May 2023 NOPR. The approach for determining markups in this direct final rule was the same approach DOE had used for the May 2023 NOPR analysis.

In response to the March 2023 NOPR, AHAM commented

that it, along with AHRI and other stakeholders, disputes DOE's distinction between markups from manufacturers to end customers for the base case, those for costs added to meet proposed standards, and the use of incremental versus average markups. (AHAM, No. 51 at p. 18) AHAM stated that in its comments on the 2015 NOPR contained quotes from actual retailers about their actual practices and they contradict the DOE process. (

Id.

)

Available at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0051.

DOE's incremental markup approach assumes that an increase in operating profits, which is implied by keeping a fixed average markup when the product price goes up, is unlikely to be viable over time in a reasonably competitive market like household appliance retailers. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index reported by the 2017 Economic Census indicates that the household appliance stores sector (NAICS 443141) is a competitive marketplace.

DOE recognizes that actors in the distribution chains are likely to seek to maintain the same markup on appliances in response to changes in MSPs after an amendment to energy conservation standards. However, DOE believes that retail

pricing is likely to adjust over time as those actors are forced to readjust their markups to reach a medium-term equilibrium in which per-unit profit is relatively unchanged before and after standards are implemented.

According to economic theory, firms in a perfectly competitive market are expected to achieve only normal profits in the long run, and any short-term economic profit would be eroded by entry and increased competition over time. While it is acknowledged that no real-world market perfectly fits the conditions of perfect competition, the theory provides insights into industries and sectors that share certain characteristics. As indicated by industry data,

the appliance retail sector is a competitive marketplace; thus, DOE contends that an increase in profitability, which is implied by keeping a fixed average markup when the production cost goes up, is not likely viable in the long run.

2017 Economic Census, Selected sectors: Concentration of largest firms for the U.S. Available at

www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/economic-census/naics-sector-44-45.html.

The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index value can be found by navigating to the “Concentration of largest firms for the U.S.” table and then filtering the industry code to NAICS 443141.The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index reported for the largest 50 firms in household appliance stores sector, is 123.8. Generally, a market with an HHI value of under 1,000 is considered to be competitive.

A recent retrospective study by LBNL compared ex-ante projections of the 2011 Direct Final Rule for Room ACs with ex-post data across various analytical inputs. While the observed product price data remain sparse, the available market data suggests that for some product classes, prices did not significantly increase after the standard change, and for others, the prices aligned with DOE's projections. Ganeshalingam, M., Ni, C., and Yang, H-C. 2021. A Retrospective Analysis of the 2011 Direct Final Rule for Room Air Conditioners. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL-2001413.

IBISWorld, US Industry Reports (NAICS):

https://my.ibisworld.com/us/en/industry/home

DOE acknowledges that markup practices in response to amended standards are complex and varying with business conditions. However, DOE's analysis necessarily only considers changes in appliance offerings that occur in response to amended standards and isolates the effect of amended standards from other factors. DOE agrees that empirical data on markup practices would be desirable, but such information is closely held and difficult to obtain. Consequently, DOE relies to economic theory as the foundation for developing the markup analysis. Hence, DOE continues to maintain that its assumption that standards do not facilitate a sustainable increase in profitability is reasonable.

The comments submitted by AHAM during the 2015 NOPR contain quotes from their interviews with retailers, but do not provide the details and the interview questions used by their consultant based on data confidentiality reasons. However, without knowing what questions were posed to the contractors and retailers, it is challenging for DOE to evaluate the applicability of those quotes. As noted, DOE's analysis necessarily considers a situation in which nothing changes except for those changes in appliance offerings that occur in response to amended standards, and this needs to be addressed clearly in the framing of the questions.

Chapter 6 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's development of markups for dishwashers.

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis

The purpose of the energy and water use analysis is to determine the annual energy and water consumption of dishwashers at different efficiencies in representative U.S. single-family homes, and multi-family residences, and to assess the energy and water savings potential of increased dishwasher efficiency. In order to determine representative life-cycle costs (as discussed in IV.F), both annual energy and water consumption are considered at each efficiency level because the technologies to improve energy efficiency may also reduce water usage (as discussed in IV.C.1.b). The energy and water use analysis estimates the range of energy and water use of dishwashers in the field (

i.e.,

as they are actually used by consumers). The energy and water use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the energy and water savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.

For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received regarding the energy and water use analysis conducted for the May 2023 NOPR. The approach used to estimate the energy and water consumption for this direct final rule is largely the same as the approach DOE had used for the May 2023 NOPR analysis.

In the May 2023 NOPR, DOE determined the average annual energy and water consumption of dishwashers by multiplying the per-cycle energy and water consumption by the number of cycles per year. 88 FR 32514, 32537. DOE used the EIA's 2020

Residential Energy Consumption Survey

(“RECS”) data to calculate an estimate of annual number of cycles.

Id.

Having determined number of cycles of dishwasher use per year for each RECS household, DOE determined the corresponding annual energy and water consumption.

Id.

In the May 2023 NOPR, DOE determined the average annual cycles of operation for dishwashers to be 197 cycles per year based on

RECS 2020.

(

Id.

88 FR 32538)

U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 2015 Public Use Microdata Files, 2020. Washington, DC. Available at

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse20/pubuse20.html.

In response to the May 2023 NOPR, Alliance for Water Efficiency (“AWE”) recommended

that DOE consider using actual data for its assumptions about cycles per year. (AWE, No. 44 at p. 2) AWE commented that a significant difference exists between the 197 cycles per year that DOE is using and the 95 cycles per year the water industry typically uses. (

Id.

) AWE stated that the water industry frequently relies on residential end use data from Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 Water Research Foundation Report #4309b (“

REUW 2016”

). (

Id.

) AWE also stated that its experience and academic research suggest there are often large gaps between consumer survey responses and actual behavior when it comes to fixture and appliance usage. (

Id.

at p. 3) AWE commented that DOE could explore acquiring data from companies using smart devices, sub-meters, or sensors installed on water meters and supply lines in thousands of homes across the United States that collect real-time end use data, which could then be disaggregated. (

Id.

)

Available at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0044.

DOE has reviewed the

REUW 2016

report published by the Water Research Foundation, which analyzed dishwasher end-use data from detailed log data from 762 households. DOE acknowledges that RECS is based on household reported frequency of average dishwasher usage per week, rather than on contemporaneous logs taken by households or meters installed on household dishwashers, which could be more reliable on an individual basis. However, unlike the

REUW 2016,

which is based on households in the service areas of 21 U.S. utilities, the

RECS 2020

consists of a nationally representative sample of housing units including more than 10,000 households that report dishwasher usage. DOE also acknowledges AWE's concern that survey data can be different from field metered data. For a comparison between survey data and field metered data, DOE referred to a report from Sun

et al.

that showed that the average annual dishwasher cycle counts obtained from Pecan Street field metered data based on a limited household sample size and limited geographic locations were comparable with the average cycle counts reported by

RECS 2020

with a difference of three percent.

Therefore,

DOE considers RECS to be the most nationally representative dataset to approximate consumer dishwasher usage in the U.S. and uses it in the analysis for this direct final rule.

Sun, Q.,

et al.

2022. Using Field-Metered Data to Characterize Consumer Usage Patterns of Residential Dishwashers. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.

AHAM commented that DOE eliminated the numerical threshold for the significant conservation of energy savings determination that was in the prior Process Rule, reverting to its earlier approach of determining whether energy savings are significant on a case-by-case basis. AHAM noted that the amended standards for dishwasher would result in 0.31 quads, but DOE could achieve far greater savings through other means such as public education. AHAM stated that on a monthly basis, savings are so minuscule as to render them meaningless relative to the potential increase in up-front purchase costs, particularly for dishwashers on the lower end of the price scale. AHAM recommended that DOE use median savings as a way to partially overcome the bias in the RECS data where a few outlier high usage RECS data points distort the results. (AHAM, No. 51 at p. 6) AHAM stated using the median LCC savings, the savings are approximately $0.72 cents per year, which is an amount so small as not to even be noticed by consumers on their monthly balance sheets. (

Id.

at pp. 6-7) AHAM further stated that proposed standards that are not cost effective are not economically justified under EPCA because the savings do not justify the manufacturer and consumer burdens that result from the amended standards and DOE should issue a determination not to amend standards beyond EL 1 for dishwashers. (

Id.

)

As described in section IV.E of this document, DOE's energy and water use analysis for this direct final rule is derived based on

RECS 2020,

which provides household's dishwasher loads information ranging from 1 cycle to 21 cycles per week, once after every meal. The household survey-based annual energy and water use for each household then feed into the LCC analysis. Excluding minimum and maximum values from the RECS households samples would result in a less accurate representation of the actual national dishwasher usage patterns and consumption distribution exhibited by the household sample. However, as a standardized approach, DOE presents the distributions of LCC savings for each product class and efficiency level as histograms and boxplots in chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD, which can also be generated via the published LCC spreadsheet tool. This approach allows stakeholders to observe the full range of LCC savings over the relevant time scale, which accounts for the total costs and savings to a consumer over the lifetime of a new unit purchased in the compliance year, enabling a more informed evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed standards. In addition, DOE's decision on amended standards is not solely determined by the average LCC savings. While LCC savings play a role, they are considered alongside other critical factors, including the percentage of negatively impacted consumers, the simple payback period, and the overall impact on manufacturers. DOE further notes, that while AHAM submitted these comments in response to the May 2023 NOPR, since then AHAM became a party to the Joint Agreement and is supportive of the recommended standard adopted in this direct final rule

The California Inventor-Owned Utilities (“CA IOUs”)

recommended

that DOE conduct a representative consumer survey to review the assumption that consumers turn off the power-dry feature 50 percent of the time if such options exists, and in the absence of such information, amend the test procedure to test the default cycle with all manufacturer recommended settings for everyday use enabled. The CA IOUs expressed concern that DOE lacked solid supportive data and defaulted to the Department of Commerce Voluntary Labeling Program's position that for “any feature requiring a consumer interaction and for which actual usage is unknown,” a “50 percent frequency” was assumed. (CA IOUs, No. 50 at p. 6) The CA IOUs commented that in practice, it is unclear how often consumers actually choose to disable power-dry and that DOE is reducing the annual energy consumption of 15 units by an average of 6 percent without proof of the expected consumer behavior. The CA IOUs cited to a 2007 Proctor & Gamble study that indicated 66 percent of households use the power-dry feature regularly. The CA IOUs suggested that DOE collect data to update this conclusion based on consumer use of power-dry, its relation to the ability to disable the feature, and its presence in default operation or recommendation for everyday use. (

Id.

at p. 7)

The “CA IOUs” includes Pacific Gas and Electric Company, SDG&E, and SCE; collectively, the California Investor-Owned Utilities.

Available at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0050.

DOE updates its analyses with the most current, nationally representative data. As pointed out by the CA IOU, the 2007 Proctor & Gamble study did not specify if the dishwashers of the participants had the option to turn off heated dry, or if the heated dry option was by default on or off, and it was unclear how the consumer samples were selected. DOE is unaware of any nationally representative consumer data showing consumer selection of drying options. Conducting a survey as suggested is not viable within the context of this rulemaking, but DOE may consider doing so for a future rulemaking. The calculation of EAEU at 10 CFR 430.23 assumes dishwashers with the power dry feature use it 50 percent of the time. In the absence of any other nationally representative data set, DOE is using the same assumption in this direct final rule analysis. DOE did not include drying option selections in this direct final rule analysis, but may consider other assumptions regarding use of drying features in future dishwasher test procedure rulemakings.

AWE commented that DOE should more thoroughly consider and evaluate the energy embedded in the water that will be saved from the proposed standard, in addition to end-user energy use. (AWE, No. 44 at p. 4) AWE has developed a water conservation tracking tool for evaluating the water savings, costs, and benefits of urban water conservation programs and for projecting future water demands. (

Id.

) AWE further stated that DOE could also adjust this based on the assumptions it is currently using for private wells and DOE can calculate the emissions-related benefits in the same way it has calculated them for direct energy savings. (

Id.

at p. 5)

DOE has previously determined that EPCA does not direct DOE to consider the energy used for utility water treatment and delivery. In a May 2012 Final Rule on Residential Clothes Washers, DOE noted that EPCA directs DOE to consider “the total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard.” 77 FR 32308, 32346 (quoting 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)). In the May 2012 Final Rule on Residential Clothes Washers, DOE interpreted “directly from the imposition of the standard” to include energy used in the generation, transmission, and distribution of fuels used by appliances. Unlike the energy used for water treatment and delivery, primary energy savings and the full-fuel-cycle measure are in a distribution chain that is directly linked to the energy used by appliances. (

Id.

)

Chapter 7 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's energy and water use analysis for dishwashers.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for dishwashers. Because the technologies to improve energy efficiency may also reduce water usage (as discussed in IV.C.1.b), the economic impacts in the LCC and PBP include both energy consumption and water consumption. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:

• The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy and water use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product.

• 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 at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.

For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the estimated efficiency distribution of dishwashers in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.

For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of housing units. As stated previously, DOE developed household samples from the

RECS 2020.

For each sample household, DOE determined the energy and water consumption for the dishwashers and the appropriate energy and water prices. By developing a representative sample of households, the analysis captured the variability in energy and water consumption and energy and water prices associated with the use of dishwashers.

Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the product—which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and distributor markups, and sales taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy and water consumption, energy and water prices and price projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.

The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and dishwasher user samples. For this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS Excel together with the Crystal Ball

add-on.

The model calculated the LCC for products at each efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per simulation run. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen product efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency.

Crystal Ball

is a commercially available software tool to facilitate the creation of these types of models by generating probability distributions and summarizing results within Excel. Available at

www.oracle.com/middleware/technologies/crystalball.html

(last accessed Oct. 19, 2023).

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for consumers of dishwashers as if each were to purchase a new product in the first year of required compliance with amended standards. Amended standards apply to dishwashers manufactured 3 years after the date on which any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B)) Therefore, DOE used 2027 as the first year of compliance with any amended standards for dishwashers.

Table IV.12 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD and its appendices.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

ER24AP24.019

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received regarding the LCC analysis conducted for the May 2023 NOPR. The LCC approach used for this direct final rule is largely the same as the approach DOE had used for the May 2023 NOPR analysis.

In response to the May 2023 NOPR, AHAM commented that DOE should focus on conducting a purchase decision analysis instead of relying on outcomes and long-term cost analyses. (AHAM, No. 51 at p. 18) AHAM commented that the logical basis for regulation lies in identifying consumer and systemic market failures, where consumer failure refers to making “incorrect” decisions due to a lack of information. (

Id.

) AHAM stated that systemic market failure relates to mispricing of inputs (such as underpricing of the environmental impacts in energy prices) or other similar conditions. AHAM commented that while there are many critiques of how accurate a rational choice model is for true consumer behavior, including the recent insights of behavioral economics, all of these discussions start from the premise of a purchase decision choice model. AHAM commented on the importance of considering the actual conditions and expectations of purchasers in DOE's LCC model, separate from the broader economic impact analysis, which should be in the National Impact Analysis. (

Id.

) AHAM suggested that the LCC model should assess the extent of market failure by comparing the actual rate of energy-efficient product purchases with the rate that rational consumers would choose. (

Id.

)

The LCC analysis currently relies on market data on the distribution of efficiency of products to assign products with varying efficiency performance to each household when compliance with the standard becomes required. This approach is intended to simulate the range of individual outcomes resulting from the hypothetical setting of a revised energy conservation standard at various levels of efficiency when the data needed to develop a product-specific consumer choice model are currently unavailable. This is a methodological decision made by DOE after considering the existence of various systematic market failures (

e.g.,

information asymmetries, bounded rationality, etc.) and their implication in rational versus actual purchase behavior. Considering that individual consumer decisions may be driven by multiple factors and may vary based on demographic features as well as available information to consumers at the time of purchase, the data required to develop a product specific complex consumer choice model were unavailable in the case of dishwashers. In the LCC analysis, DOE aims to simulate the range of individual outcomes resulting from a hypothetical setting of revised energy efficiency standards. Both the distribution and the national average values were considered. Moreover, the outcome of the LCC is not considered in isolation, but in the context of the broader set of analyses, including the NIA. DOE further notes, that AHAM is a party to the Joint Agreement and is supportive of the recommended standard adopted in this direct final rule.

AHAM stated that there have been changes in DOE's analysis for standard-size dishwashers between the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis and the May 2023 NOPR including the percentage of consumers experiencing a net cost decreased from 43 percent to 3 percent and the payback period decreased from 7 to 2.4 years and it is unclear how DOE arrived at the new conclusions that have a significant impact on overall energy savings estimates and economic analysis. (AHAM, No. 51 at p. 26) Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”) questioned

why there is such a big departure in consumer cost-effectiveness for EL 2 between the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis and the May 2023 NOPR. (Whirlpool, No. 45 at pp. 3-4) Whirlpool commented that compared to the 43 percent of consumers who were estimated to experience a net cost from EL 2 in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, only 3 percent of consumers are now estimated to experience a net cost from this level in the May 2023 NOPR. (

Id.

) Whirlpool further commented that given this very large apparent change in the data and the impact that this has on DOE's overall selection of TSLs, DOE should provide stakeholders with supporting information/data that led to this drastic change in the analysis. (

Id.

)

Available at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0045.

DOE updates its analytical inputs with the most recent available data sources, in response to stakeholder comment, and based on information obtained through testing, teardowns, manufacturer interviews, and any additional research and analysis. Input updates include MPCs, energy and water prices and price trends, dollar year, price learning trends, product efficiency distributions, discount rate, sales tax, and shipments. For this final rule, the LCC inputs are summarized in Table IV.12. Because of those input changes, the LCC results were changed in the May 2023 NOPR analysis, and again in the direct final rule analysis compared to those from the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis. In this case, the primary driver of the decrease in percent of consumers with a net cost is based on a change in MPC between the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis and the May 2023 NOPR, driven by DOE's updated engineering analysis. Specifically, based on manufacturer feedback, DOE revisited its teardown analysis and observed that the same technology options exist at both EL 1 and EL 2, with EL 2 units having improved control started and design tolerances. For these reasons, the MPC at EL 2 is the same as that at EL 1, which decreases the percent of consumers with a net cost at EL 2. DOE notes that AHAM (of which Whirlpool is a member) supported the Recommended TSL, which includes the same EL as the standards proposed in the May 2023 NOPR for standard-size dishwashers.

1. Product Cost

To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for baseline products and higher-efficiency products because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-efficiency products.

Economic literature and historical data suggest that the real costs of many products may trend downward over time according to “learning” or “experience” curves. An experience curve analysis implicitly includes factors such as efficiencies in labor, capital investment, automation, materials prices, distribution, and economies of scale at an industry-wide level. To derive the learning rate parameter for dishwashers, DOE obtained historical Producer Price Index (“PPI”) data for appliances from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”). A PPI for “all-other-miscellaneous-household-appliances” was available for the time period between 1988 and 2014.

However, the all-other-miscellaneous-household-appliances PPI was discontinued beyond 2014 due to insufficient sample size. To extend the price index beyond 2014, DOE assumed that the price index of primary products of major household appliance manufacturing would trend similarly to all other miscellaneous household appliances. This is because, based on communications with BLS researchers, discontinued series are often grouped into the primary products under the more aggregated PPI series. Examining the PPI of all other miscellaneous household appliances and primary products of major household appliances shows that the magnitudes of both price trends align with each other. Inflation-adjusted price indices were calculated by dividing the PPI series by the gross domestic product index from Bureau of Economic Analysis for the same years. Using data from 1988-2021, the estimated learning rate (defined as the fractional reduction in price expected from each doubling of cumulative production) is 24.2 percent, which results in an average annual price decline of 0.96 percent.

See

chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD for further details on this topic.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, PPI Industry Data, Major household appliance manufacturers, Product series ID: PCU 33522033522011. Data series available at

www.bls.gov/ppi/.

For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received regarding the methodology for calculating consumer product costs that was presented in the May 2023 NOPR. The approach used for this direct final rule is largely the same as the approach DOE had used for the May 2023 NOPR analysis.

In response to the May 2023 NOPR, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (“NEEA”) encouraged

DOE to consider a specific learning curve for variable-speed drives when conducting future dishwasher standards analyses similar to its approach in the recent refrigerator standards rulemaking. (NEEA, No. 53 at p. 2)

Available at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0053.

DOE did not consider a specific price learning curve for variable-speed drives due to the lack of data regarding the data regarding the relevant market share of products. DOE will consider all available technology options and their related learning curves when conducting future dishwasher standards analyses for standards rulemakings.

AHAM commented that DOE's application of a “learning or experience curve” to reduce expected extra manufacturing costs required to meet proposed standard levels lacks a solid theoretical foundation for why an experience or learning curve should exist, what functional form it should take and whether it should be a continuous function. (AHAM, No. 51 at p. 19) AHAM commented that the approach, based solely on empirical relationships, demands clear alignment with the actual products in question and the data used to develop the relationship. AHAM stated that when the data takes a new shape, DOE must adjust its equations to reflect that change as continuing to use old data and equations simply to create a longer time series is not acceptable. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that DOE's justification that continued use of learning rates is justified by past price declines is DOE confusing past correlation with future causation and the very severe limitations of forward projection without a sound theoretical basis for assuming that the correlation will continue. (

Id.

) AHAM further stated that there is no particularly strong reason to expect that any future trends will be modeled with a continuous

function of the form DOE is proposing and that there is an apparent “flattening” of the data in DOE's learning curve equation. Additionally, AHAM stated that all recent data is above the line drawn by the equation should give DOE significant pause to consider whether it is modeling a relationship that no longer holds, no matter what the regressions statistics from past data show. (

Id.

at pp. 19-20) AHAM commented that such “learning” should not be projected beyond labor and materials costs, given it does not logically apply to overheads, sales, marketing, general and administrative costs, or depreciation and financing costs. (

Id.

at p. 20)

DOE notes that there is considerable empirical evidence of consistent price declines for appliances in the past few decades. Several studies examined retail prices of various household appliances, including dishwashers, during different periods of time and showed that prices had been steadily falling while efficiency had been increasing, for example Dale,

et al.

(2009) and Taylor,

et al.

(2015). Given the limited data availability on historical manufacturing costs broken out by different components, DOE utilized the PPI published by the BLS as a proxy for manufacturing costs to represent the analyzed product as a whole. While products may experience varying degrees of price learning during different product stages, DOE modeled the average learning rate based on the full historical PPI series to capture the overall price evolution in relation to the cumulative shipments. When fitting the historical PPI and cumulative annual shipments to the experience curve, which takes the form of a power function, the resulting R-square value is 91 percent. Despite that the observed data could deviate above or below the fitted curve during certain periods, the high value of R-square indicates a reasonable fit overall, although DOE recognizes the difficulty when projecting regression results out of sample. In addition, DOE also conducted sensitivity analyses that are based on a particular segment of the PPI data for “all other miscellaneous household appliances and primary products of major household appliances” to investigate the impact of alternative product price projections (low price learning and constant price) in the NIA of this rulemaking. In all scenarios that DOE considered, the impact of the price projection on the Net Present Value estimates is limited to negative three percent to one percent for the adopted TSL. Overall, the impact would not affect the policy decision. For details of the sensitivity results,

see

appendix 10C of the direct final rule TSD. DOE further notes, that AHAM is a party to the Joint Agreement and is supportive of the recommended standard adopted in this direct final rule.

2. Installation Cost

Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts needed to install the product. Based on inputs provided by manufacturers, DOE concluded that installation costs would not be impacted by increased efficiency levels. DOE received no stakeholder comments on this issue.

3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption

For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy and water consumption for dishwashers at different efficiency levels using the approach described previously in section IV.E of this document. Both energy and water consumption are considered in the LCC analysis because the technologies to improve energy efficiency may also reduce water usage (as discussed in section IV.C.1.b of this document).

4. Energy and Water Prices

a. Energy Prices

Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the product purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other efficiency levels considered.

DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 using data from EEI Typical Bills and Average Rates reports. Based upon comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, this semi-annual report presents typical monthly elect

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.