# Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers, Residential Clothes Washers, and Consumer Clothes Dryers

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2024-30797

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** December 27, 2024
- **Citation:** 89 FR 105408

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002]
RIN 1904-AF69
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers, Residential Clothes Washers, and Consumer Clothes Dryers

AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

SUMMARY:

In light of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granting a petition for review of a final rule published by the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) on January 19, 2022, and remanding the matter to DOE for further proceedings, DOE has considered the factors outlined by the Fifth Circuit on whether “short-cycle” product classes for dishwashers, residential clothes washers, and consumer clothes dryers are warranted under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and confirms the withdrawal of “short-cycle” product classes in the January 19, 2022, final rule.

DATES:

The effective date of the final rule published on January 19, 2022 (87 FR 2673) is confirmed as February 18, 2022, without change.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this rulemaking, which includes
Federal Register
notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at
www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov
index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002.
The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5649. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 961-1189. Email:
Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

II. Discussion

A. Dishwashers

1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature

2. Justification of Different Standards for Dishwashers With a Short-Cycle Feature

3. Response to Other Comments

a. Historical Cycle Time Trends

B. Residential Clothes Washers

1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature

2. Justification of Different Standards for Residential Clothes Washers With a Short-Cycle Feature

C. Consumer Clothes Dryers

1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature

2. Justification of Different Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers With a Short-Cycle Feature

D. Other Topics Addressed by the Fifth Circuit

1. Water Authority

2. Test Procedure Authority

3. Preservation of Product Utility and Potential for Increased Energy or Water Use

a. Dishwashers

b. Residential Clothes Washers

c. Consumer Clothes Dryers

III. Conclusions

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction

The following sections briefly discuss the statutory authority underlying this confirmation of withdrawal, as well as some of the historical background relevant to dishwashers, residential clothes washers (“RCWs”), and consumer clothes dryers.

A. Authority

The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) must follow specific statutory criteria under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163,
1

as amended, (“EPCA”) for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

1
All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact parts A and A-1 of EPCA.

In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;

(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;

(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) through (VII))

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))

Additionally, 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 considers 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))

B. Background

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 551
et seq.,
provides, among other things, that “[e]ach agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.” (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) Pursuant to this provision of the APA, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (“CEI”) petitioned DOE (“March 2018 Petition”) for the issuance of a rule establishing a new product class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) that would cover dishwashers with a cycle time of less than 60 minutes from washing through drying, asserting that it is not technologically feasible to create dishwashers that both meet the current standards and have cycle times of 60 minutes or less.
2

On October 30, 2020, DOE published a final rule that established a product class for standard-size dishwashers with a cycle time for the normal cycle
3

of 60 minutes or less. 85 FR 68723 (“October 2020 Final Rule”). Contrary to CEI's claim in the March 2018 Petition that it is not technologically feasible for a dishwasher with a cycle time of 60 minutes or less to meet the current standards, in the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE identified several dishwashers that had cycles that were less than 60 minutes and met the current standards but asserted that establishing a product class for dishwashers with a normal cycle of 60 minutes or less could spur manufacturer innovation to generate additional product offerings.
Id.
at 85 FR 68726. The October 2020 Final Rule additionally specified that the current standards for dishwashers no longer apply to short-cycle products and that DOE intended to conduct the necessary rulemaking to determine standards that would provide the maximum energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in a significant conservation of energy.
Id.
at 85 FR 68733, 68741.

2

See
document IDs 0006 and 0007 at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005.

3
The “normal cycle” is specifically defined in section 1 of the DOE test procedure at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), part 430, subpart B, appendix C1 (“appendix C1”), as “the cycle type, including washing and drying temperature options, recommended in the manufacturer's instructions for daily, regular, or typical use to completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes including the power-dry feature,” among other criteria.

Following the October 2020 Final Rule, having determined that similarities exist between the consumer use of dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers (
i.e.,
that these products offer several cycles with varying times, and that consumers run these cycles multiple times per week on average), DOE published a final rule on December 16, 2020, that established product classes for top-loading standard-size RCWs and certain classes of consumer clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, and front-loading standard-size RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes (“December 2020 Final Rule”). 85 FR 81359. Similar to the October 2020 Final Rule, the December 2020 Final Rule also specified that the current standards for RCWs and consumer clothes dryers no longer apply to short-cycle products. 85 FR 68723, 68742; 85 FR 81359, 81376.

On January 19, 2022, DOE published a final rule (“January 2022 Final Rule”) revoking the October 2020 Final Rule and the December 2020 Final Rule (collectively, “Short-Cycle Final Rules”). In that rule, DOE noted that the appropriate time for establishing a new product class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) is during a rulemaking prescribing new or amended standards. 87 FR 2673, 2682. And, as the Short-Cycle Final Rules stated that they were not applying the rulemaking analysis pursuant to the seven factors specified in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) for the establishment of standards, DOE found that these rules were improperly promulgated.
Id.
at 87 FR 2673. The January 2022 Final Rule reinstated the prior product classes and applicable standards for these covered products.
Id.
at 87 FR 2686.

On March 17, 2022, various States filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”) seeking review of the January 2022 Final Rule, which eliminated the short-cycle product classes and reinstated the applicable energy conservation standards. The petitioners argued that the January 2022 Final Rule withdrawing the Short-Cycle Final Rules violated EPCA and was arbitrary and capricious. On January 8, 2024, the Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded the matter to DOE for further proceedings consistent with the Fifth Circuit's opinion. In remanding the January 2022 Final Rule for further consideration, the Court held that even if the Short-Cycle Final Rules were invalid, DOE was obligated to consider other remedies short of withdrawal.
See Louisiana, et al.
v.
United States Department of Energy, et al.,
90 F.4th 461, 477 (5th Cir. 2024). Specifically, the Court noted that instead of withdrawing the Short-Cycle Final Rules, DOE could have promulgated energy conservation standards for the short-cycle product classes.
Id.
at 476.

As a result, DOE has considered whether short-cycle product classes and standards can be established under the applicable statutory criteria. Under EPCA, DOE establishes product classes based on: (1) fuel type; or (2) performance-related features. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) With regards to product classes based on performance-related features, the product must have a feature which other products within such type do not have and such feature must justify a different standard from

that which applies to other products within such type. (
Id.).
In the Short-Cycle Final Rules, DOE found that cycle time was a performance-related feature and that some products had shorter cycle times than others. 85 FR 68723, 68726; 85 FR 81359, 81361. But the Short-Cycle Final Rules did not determine whether cycle time justified different standards. Instead, the Short-Cycle Final Rules stated DOE would determine specific standards in a separate rulemaking.
Id.
Therefore, to establish separate energy conservation standards for short-cycle product classes, DOE must first confirm the determination made in the Short-Cycle Final Rules that cycle time is a performance-related feature for these three covered products. DOE must then determine that a different standard level is justified for short-cycle products, as there is no basis for establishing a product class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) that would be subject to the same standard level. Finally, assuming DOE determines that cycle time is a performance-related feature and a different standard level is justified for short-cycle products, DOE must apply the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) to prescribe energy conservation standards that, among other things, are technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in significant conservation of energy.

As part of this process, DOE published a request for information on March 11, 2024 (“March 2024 RFI”), seeking data and other information on, among other things, the presence of any short-cycle products in the market and any relationship between cycle time and performance. 89 FR 17338.

Subsequently, on November 8, 2024, DOE published a proposed confirmation of withdrawal (“November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal”), which considered the factors outlined by the Fifth Circuit and proposed to confirm the elimination of short-cycle product classes in the January 2022 Final Rule. 89 FR 88661. DOE received comments in response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal from the interested parties listed in Table I.1.
4

4
Table I.1 excludes two non-substantive comments received from anonymous commenters, which were considered in the development of this confirmation but not cited individually.

Table I.1—List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal

Commenter(s)
Reference in this final rule

Comment No.
in the docket

Commenter type

Alliance for Water Efficiency
AWE
20
Efficiency Organization.

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
AHAM
23
Trade Organization.

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, AWE, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, and National Consumer Law Center

ASAP
et al

21
Efficiency Organizations.

California Energy Commission
CEC
17
State Agency.

Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric (collectively, the California Investor-Owned Utilities)
CA IOUs
22
Utilities.

Competitive Enterprise Institute
CEI
18
Advocacy Organization.

Michael Ravnitzky
Ravnitzky
15
Individual.

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NEEA
19
Efficiency Organization.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
5

5
The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket for this rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002, which is maintained at:
www.regulations.gov
). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number at page of that document).

II. Discussion

This discussion responds to the Fifth Circuit's January 8, 2024, decision remanding this matter to DOE for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In remanding the January 2022 Final Rule for further consideration, the Fifth Circuit found the January 2022 Final Rule arbitrary and capricious for two principal reasons:

(1) It failed to adequately consider appliance performance, substitution effects, and the “ample record evidence” that DOE's conservation standards are causing Americans to use more energy and water rather than less; and

(2) It rested instead on DOE's view that the Short-Cycle Final Rules were legally invalid—but even if true, that does not excuse DOE from considering other remedies short of repealing the Short-Cycle Final Rules
in toto.

Louisiana,
90 F.4th at 477.

With regards to the second reason, the Court noted that instead of withdrawing the Short-Cycle Final Rules, DOE could have promulgated energy conservation standards for the short-cycle product classes.
Id.
at 476.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE considered whether an alternative to withdrawing the Short-Cycle Final Rules—establishing standards for the short-cycle product classes—would be justified under EPCA. 89 FR 88661, 88664. Specifically, DOE tentatively concluded that the short-cycle features of dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers do not justify standards different from those applicable to those products generally.
Id.
DOE also considered the effect of withdrawing the short-cycle product classes on product performance and energy and water use savings, including cleaning and drying performance, the potential for increased substitution (
e.g.,
by hand washing or pre-washing), and the risk that standards are unintentionally increasing energy use (
e.g.,
via consumers relying on multiple cycles or unregulated cycles).
Id.

AWE, AHAM, ASAP
et al.,
CEC, CA IOUs, NEEA, and Ravnitzky commented in support of the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and noted that short-cycle product classes do not warrant different energy conservation standards than those generally applicable to dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers. (AWE, No. 20 at p. 1; AHAM, No. 23 at p. 2; ASAP
et al.,
No. 21 at pp. 1-2; CEC, No. 17 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 19 at pp. 1-2; Ravnitzky, No. 15 at p. 1)

CEI asserted that terminating the short-cycle product classes for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers would ignore the consumer protections in EPCA as well as recent Federal court precedent and should not be finalized. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 1) CEI also commented that the Fifth

Circuit held that DOE's failure to consider any alternative other than refusing to promulgate a rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious. CEI stated that an alternative would have been to set a new standard for short-cycle product classes while taking other relevant features into account, as required by EPCA. (
Id.
at p. 5)

DOE notes that in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE did, in fact, consider whether an alternative to withdrawing the Short-Cycle Final Rules would be justified under EPCA, as required by the Fifth Circuit's decision remanding the January 2022 Final Rule to DOE. 89 FR 88661. As discussed in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and in the following sections of this document, DOE concludes that the short-cycle features of dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers do not justify standards different from those applicable to these products generally.

A. Dishwashers

The following sections apply DOE's authority under EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) to determine whether a “short-cycle” feature for dishwashers is a performance-related feature that justifies the establishment of a separate product class. DOE considers a short-cycle feature for dishwashers to be a cycle that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less. DOE first reiterates its prior determinations that cycle time is a performance-related feature of dishwashers and details its specific consideration of the short-cycle feature (
see
section II.A.1 of this document). As discussed in section II.A.2 of this document, DOE determines in this analysis that the short-cycle feature does not justify a different standard. Data and information from the Short-Cycle Final Rules, March 2024 RFI, and dishwashers direct final rule published on April 24, 2024 (“April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule”; 89 FR 31398) show that products with a normal cycle of less than 60 minutes can meet the current energy conservation standards using the same design strategies as other dishwashers of comparable efficiency without a short-cycle feature. Finally, in section II.A.3 of this document, DOE addresses other pertinent comments received in response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal that pertain to the dishwasher topics discussed in this document.

1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature

DOE first considered whether cycle time is a performance-related feature of dishwashers in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). Consistent with DOE's assessment in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and in previous rulemakings, discussed as follows, DOE reiterates that cycle time is a performance-related feature of dishwashers.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) published on July 16, 2019 (“July 2019 NOPR”), DOE noted that while some individual consumers commented in response to the Notice of Petition for Rulemaking that was published on April 24, 2018 (83 FR 17768) that they were not concerned with a shorter cycle time, other individual consumers expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of time necessary to run their dishwashers. 84 FR 33869, 33873. In the July 2019 NOPR, DOE further discussed that the data and comments from dissatisfied consumers indicated that for many consumers, there is a utility in shorter cycle times to clean a normally soiled load of dishes.
Id.
Based on these considerations, DOE concluded that cycle time for dishwashers is a performance-related feature for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).
Id.

DOE reiterated this conclusion in the October 2020 Final Rule. 85 FR 68723, 68726-68732. Specifically, DOE concluded in the October 2020 Final Rule that dishwashers with a normal cycle with a cycle time of 60 minutes or less have a performance-related feature that other dishwashers currently on the market lack.
Id.
at 85 FR 68726, citing 84 FR 33869, 33871. As defined in section 1 of appendix C1, the normal cycle refers to the cycle recommended to the consumer to completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes.

As discussed, CEI petitioned DOE in March 2018 to establish a separate product class for dishwashers for which the normal cycle is less than 60 minutes. In the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE finalized the creation of a new product class for standard-size dishwashers with a normal cycle of 60 minutes or less. 85 FR 68723, 68733. In the January 2022 Final Rule, DOE did not question the validity of those prior determinations that short cycles provide a performance-related feature. 87 FR 2673, 2682.

In response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, AHAM commented that cycle time is an important consumer feature. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 2) The CA IOUs, however, commented that the March 2018 Petition from CEI, the Short-Cycle Final Rules, and the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal did not include sufficient justification from DOE or CEI for why these specific short-cycle times offered a unique consumer utility. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2) The CA IOUs requested that DOE assess the merits of the selected cycle time delineations and the consumer utility they may or may not provide in future rulemakings. (
Id.
)

In response to the comment from the CA IOUs, DOE notes that the specific short-cycle time considered, 60 minutes or less, is less than the average cycle time for this product. As such, DOE believes this short-cycle time can provide utility to some consumers,
e.g.,
consumers needing to complete multiple cycles in a limited amount of time. For the reasons stated in the July 2019 NOPR and October 2020 Final Rule, and consistent with the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE reconfirms in this confirmation of withdrawal that cycle time is a performance-related feature of dishwashers for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).

The following paragraphs discuss DOE's specific consideration of the short-cycle feature for dishwashers.

To address the concerns of the Fifth Circuit regarding DOE's previous consideration of “quick” cycles as the basis for concluding whether separate standards are justified for short-cycle dishwashers, for the analysis conducted in support of the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE did not consider any “quick” cycles that do not perform equivalently to a normal cycle. In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE considered a dishwasher to have a “short-cycle feature” only if it provides a cycle with the capability of “completely washing”
6

a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less, as would be the consumer expectation for a normal cycle. 89 FR 88661, 88665. In accordance with the Fifth Circuit's January 8, 2024, decision, DOE did not consider any “quick” cycles intended

for washing only a partial load of dishes, or a cycle unable to completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes, to be a short-cycle feature for the purpose of this analysis—even if such cycle has a cycle time of 60 minutes or less.
Id.
In this regard, the analyses performed in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal differed from the analyses DOE performed in support of the January 2022 Final Rule, in which DOE considered all “quick” cycles with a cycle time of 60 minutes or less, regardless of dish load size or cleaning ability. By considering only cycles that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes, DOE avoided considering “quick” cycles designed for addressing niche applications (
e.g.,
light soils, delicate items,
etc.
) that are not capable of washing a full load of normally soiled dishes, as would be the consumer expectation for a normal cycle.

6
As discussed elsewhere in this document, DOE's test procedure for dishwashers at 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix C2 (“appendix C2”), which references the latest industry test standard, defines a minimum cleaning index of 70 as the level that represents “completely washing” a full load of normally soiled dishes—as measured on each of the three soil loads that are tested in the DOE test procedure (
i.e.,
the heavy, medium, and light soil loads).
See
88 FR 3234, 3251-3263. For the purpose of this confirmation of withdrawal, and consistent with the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE considers “completely washing a full load of normally soiled dishes” to mean achieving a cleaning index of at least 70 on each of the three soil loads.

In response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, Ravnitzky commented that, in his experience, he occasionally uses the shorter cycles on his dishwasher when the dishes are not very dirty or when the task needs to be completed quickly. Ravnitzky further commented that these occasions are relatively infrequent and that, for the majority of the time, he relies on the standard cycles to ensure thorough cleaning and drying. (Ravnitzky, No. 15 at p. 1)

AHAM commented that consumers are satisfied with existing normal cycle times and most products also have short-cycle options for when quicker cycles are needed. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 1)

CEI asserted that the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal repeated the claim from the January 2022 Final Rule that the availability of quick cycles on many dishwasher models obviates the need for the short-cycle product class, which would be applicable to the normal cycle. CEI noted that the Fifth Circuit criticized and rejected this argument and asserted that DOE did not address this concern in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 6)

In response to the comment from CEI, DOE reiterates that it did, in fact, address the concerns of the Fifth Circuit regarding DOE's previous consideration of “quick” cycles as the basis for concluding whether separate standards are justified for short-cycle dishwashers. Specifically, as discussed, DOE's analysis conducted in support of the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal did not consider any “quick” cycles that do not perform equivalently to a normal cycle. Rather, in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE considered in its determination of a short-cycle feature only those dishwasher cycles that could completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less, as would be the consumer expectation for a normal cycle.
7

89 FR 88661, 88665. DOE specifically noted that this distinction to only consider cycles that met both the cleaning performance threshold and cycle time threshold was a key difference in the analyses performed in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal from the analyses performed in the January 2022 Final Rule. 89 FR 88661, 88665, 88667-88668.

7
Specifically, DOE defined “completely washing” a full load of normally soiled dishes as those cycles that were soiled with the same soil loads as is used in the DOE test procedure to test the normal cycle (
i.e.,
heavy, medium, and light soil loads as defined in the DOE test procedure at appendix C1 and appendix C2) and achieved a cleaning index of at least 70 on each of the three soil loads as specified in appendix C2. 89 FR 88661, 88665.

In this document, consistent with the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE continues to consider a dishwasher to have a short-cycle feature only if it provides any cycle with the capability of completely washing a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less, as would be the consumer expectation for the normal cycle. In the sections that follow, DOE evaluates whether such a short-cycle feature justifies a separate product class in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).

2. Justification of Different Standards for Dishwashers With a Short-Cycle Feature

As discussed, EPCA authorizes DOE to prescribe a higher or lower standard than that which applies (or would apply) for such type (or class) for any group of covered products which have 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 considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (
Id.
)

A typical application of this provision of EPCA is for DOE to establish comparatively less stringent standards for classes of covered products that have a performance-related feature that inherently uses more energy than products without such feature, and for which DOE has determined that such feature provides a utility to the consumer that justifies the comparatively less stringent standard. For example, when establishing standards for consumer refrigerators, DOE determined through-the-door ice service to be a performance-related feature of refrigerators that provides utility to the consumer and that affects efficiency;
i.e.,
inherently uses more energy (
see
discussion of product class segregation at 52 FR 46367, 46371 (Dec. 7, 1987)). Accordingly, DOE established comparatively less stringent standards for refrigerators with through-the-door ice service than for equivalent refrigerators without such a feature. 54 FR 47916, 47943-47944 (Nov. 17, 1989). DOE has maintained a product class distinction with comparatively less stringent standards for refrigerators with through-the-door ice service through successive amendments to the standards for consumer refrigerators.
8

8
Separate refrigerator product class distinctions are made for additional product features as well, such as automatic defrost and transparent doors.
See
10 CFR 430.32(a).

In the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE acknowledged that designing a dishwasher with a normal cycle time of 60 minutes or less is achievable and asserted that establishing a short-cycle product class could spur manufacturer innovation to generate additional product offerings to fill the market gap that exists for dishwashers with this feature (
i.e.,
the ability to clean a load of normally soiled dishes in under 60 minutes). DOE further stated its intent to determine the specific energy and water conservation standards of the new product class in a separate rulemaking. 85 FR 68723, 68724.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE conducted an analysis of the energy and water use of a short-cycle feature for dishwashers to evaluate whether different (
i.e.,
comparatively less stringent) standards would be warranted for dishwashers that provide a short-cycle feature. 89 FR 88661, 88666. As discussed in the previous section of this document, DOE has determined that a normal cycle of 60 minutes or less on a dishwasher is a performance-related feature that provides consumer utility for the purpose of consideration of potential product class distinction under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE next evaluated whether dishwashers with a short-cycle feature necessitate more energy and water use

than dishwashers without such feature, which could justify a comparatively less stringent standard for dishwashers that provide such a feature.
Id.

To evaluate the energy and water use of a short-cycle feature in comparison to the currently applicable energy and water standards, in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE considered all data available from recent rulemakings, including data from testing conducted in support of the October 2020 Final Rule
9

and the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule and confidential data from AHAM.
Id.

9
DOE test data are available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3213
.

The data from testing conducted in support of the October 2020 Final Rule included energy and water use, cycle time, and cleaning performance scores. Because there was no established DOE test procedure to evaluate dishwasher cleaning performance at the time of the October 2020 Final Rule, the cleaning performance scores in the October 2020 Final Rule dataset were based on the 2014 ENERGY STAR Test Method for Determining Residential Dishwasher Cleaning Performance
10

(“2014 ENERGY STAR Test Method”). 85 FR 68723, 68725.

10
Test Method for Determining Residential Dishwasher Cleaning Performance. Rev. Feb-2014. Available at
www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/specs//ENERGY%20STAR%20Final%20Test%20Method%20for%20Determining%20Residential%20Dishwasher%20Cleaning%20Perfor%20%20%20_0.pdf
.

In a final rule amending the test procedure for dishwashers published on January 18, 2023 (“January 2023 TP Final Rule”), DOE established a new test procedure at 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix C2 (“appendix C2”), which in addition to measuring the energy and water use of a dishwasher, specifies a methodology to evaluate the cleaning performance of a dishwasher and establishes a minimum cleaning index threshold as criteria for a valid test cycle.
11

In the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE discussed that it was implementing this minimum cleaning index threshold as criteria for a valid test cycle to ensure that the measured energy and water results are reflective of a cycle that meets consumer expectations (
i.e.,
to ensure that the DOE test procedure produces results that are representative of an average use cycle). 88 FR 3234, 3250-3267.

11
DOE notes that manufacturers will be required to use the test procedure at appendix C2 on and after April 23, 2027, which is the compliance date of the amended standards in the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule.
See
88 FR 3234; 89 FR 31398.

In conducting the analyses for the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE identified that the 2014 ENERGY STAR Test Method that was used at the time of the October 2020 Final Rule to evaluate cleaning performance produces test results with greater variability and less repeatability in comparison to test results produced by DOE's appendix C2 test procedure.
12

For consistency with the analysis conducted for the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and to ensure representativeness of the cleaning performance indices resulting from the testing for the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE translated the October 2020 Final Rule test data to be equivalent to test results achieved under appendix C2,
13

which DOE has established to be representative of an average consumer use cycle. 89 FR 88661, 88666.

12
Specifically, in addition to scoring soil particles on all items of the test load, the February 2014 ENERGY STAR Test Method also scores spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on glassware. In the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE explained that because the DOE test is conducted without rinse aid—which can impact the scoring of spots of streaks on glassware—DOE finalized the cleaning performance test method to exclude the scoring of spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on glassware. 88 FR 3234, 3255-3256.

13
DOE's test data translated to be equivalent to test results achieved under appendix C2 is available in the Technical Appendix to this document, available in the docket for this rulemaking at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002
.

Further, in the October 2020 Final Rule, DOE used the cleaning performance scores produced by the 2014 ENERGY STAR Test Method for comparison purposes only, stating that DOE did not have information at the time to relate the cleaning scores produced by that test method to minimum consumer acceptance of cleaning performance. 85 FR 68723, 68726. It was not until the January 2023 TP Final Rule that DOE determined that a score of 70 as tested according to appendix C2 reflects the threshold of consumer acceptability for cleaning performance of a normal cycle. Accordingly, DOE established in appendix C2 a minimum cleaning index threshold of 70 as a condition for a valid test cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3259-3263. Appendix C2 also requires that, as a condition for a valid test, the threshold cleaning index of 70 be achieved on each of the heavy, medium, and light soil loads required for testing, which collectively represent typical consumer usage patterns of dishwashers.

Consistent with this determination of the threshold for a consumer-acceptable level of cleaning performance, in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and in this document, DOE only considered a dishwasher as having a “short-cycle feature” if it had a cycle time less than 60 minutes and a per-cycle cleaning index threshold of at least 70.

From its test sample, DOE identified one unit that provides a “short-cycle feature”—as DOE has described that term in this document—that uses less energy and water than the maximum allowable standard level for standard-size dishwashers. 89 FR 88661, 88666. Specifically, this unit achieves a cleaning index of at least 70 on the heavy, medium, and light soil loads that are required for testing the normal cycle, with a cycle time less than 60 minutes;
i.e.,
provides a “short-cycle feature” consistent with consumer expectations of a normal cycle.
14

This unit's test results demonstrate that providing a short-cycle feature consistent with consumer expectations of a normal cycle (
i.e.,
a cycle that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less) does not necessitate using more energy and water than a dishwasher without such feature that meets the current standards. DOE further evaluated the technologies and design strategies used by this dishwasher and tentatively concluded that this unit does not incorporate any proprietary technologies or design strategies and is designed no differently than other dishwashers of comparable efficiency without a short-cycle feature.
Id.

14
In consideration of the Fifth Circuit's opinion that in the short-cycle rulemakings DOE pointed to existing “quick” cycles that did not address the foundational concerns underlying these rules, DOE considers in this analysis that the other units in the test sample that provide a dishwasher cycle less than 60 minutes, but that do not “completely wash” a full load of normally soiled dishes, do not have what DOE is describing as a “short-cycle feature” in this document, and therefore do not factor into DOE's consideration of whether a separate product class is justified for dishwashers with a short-cycle feature.
See
Louisiana, 90 F.4th at 474-75.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE tentatively concluded that the availability of this feature currently on the market—at lower energy and water levels than the current standard allows—in a unit with no identifiable proprietary design or control strategy demonstrated that a dishwasher with a short-cycle feature does not inherently use more energy and water than a dishwasher without such feature to achieve an acceptable cleaning performance, and that the current dishwasher standards do not preclude manufacturers from offering a normal cycle of 60 minutes or less.
Id.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE discussed that further evaluation of consumer survey data and comments from dishwasher manufacturers indicates that the limited

availability of short-cycle features on the current market is not indicative of energy conservation standards precluding or discouraging the availability of such feature, but rather reflects the prioritization of product offerings by manufacturers commensurate with a relatively low level of market demand for this feature in comparison to other features more important to consumers.
Id.
On average, a consumer runs 184 dishwasher cycles per year, or, said another way, consumers run their dishwasher approximately once every two days. 88 FR 3234, 3244. This usage pattern doesn't demonstrate a need for faster cycle times, further supporting the low market demand for the short-cycle feature.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE re-analyzed the provisions of a previous rulemaking (
i.e.,
the January 2022 Final Rule) that withdrew short-cycle product and tentatively determined, based on the available test data—which demonstrated that it is feasible to design a short-cycle feature while meeting current standards—as well as stakeholder comments and market survey data, that (1) a short-cycle feature that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less is technologically feasible; (2) current standards do not prevent dishwasher manufacturers from providing such a short-cycle feature; and (3) there is a dishwasher currently available on the market that provides such a short-cycle feature and meets the currently applicable energy and water standard. 89 FR 88661, 88667. Accordingly, DOE did not propose to establish separate energy conservation standards for dishwashers with a short-cycle feature.
Id.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE sought comment on these proposed determinations.
Id.

The CA IOUs commented that DOE had demonstrated that the applicable standards for dishwashers do not preclude manufacturers from developing products that meet the intention of the short-cycle product class and agreed that the technological feasibility of developing such products is the appropriate factor when determining if a performance characteristic merits a different standard level. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2)

ASAP
et al.
commented in support of DOE's proposal to confirm the withdrawal of the short-cycle product class for dishwashers on the basis that there is at least one model available on the market that provides the short-cycle feature and uses less energy and water than the current standard. ASAP
et al.
noted that DOE considered a model to have the short-cycle feature only if it meets the consumer expectation of a normal cycle (
i.e.,
completely washing a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less). ASAP
et al.
stated that the availability of such a model demonstrates that the current standards for these products are not precluding manufacturers from offering products with short cycle times and good product performance on a normal cycle. (ASAP
et al.,
No. 21 at pp. 1-2)

CEC agreed with DOE that standards do not impact the ability of manufacturers to provide dishwashers with the short-cycle feature, as evidenced by existing product offerings. CEC further asserted that manufacturer comments on the rulemaking make it clear that a short-cycle product class is neither necessary nor warranted for dishwashers, and accordingly, a separate product class is not justified. (CEC, No. 17 at p. 1)

Ravnitzky supported DOE's tentative determination that a short-cycle feature for dishwashers does not justify a separate product class with separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) to not impose separate requirements for short-cycle features. (Ravnitzky, No. 15 at p. 1)

NEEA supported DOE's proposal in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal to eliminate “short-cycle” product classes for dishwashers. NEEA stated that its comments build upon past NEEA letters submitted to DOE, which demonstrated that short-cycle product classes were unnecessary for these products because (1) consumers already have access to short cycle settings on dishwashers; (2) consumers use short cycles relatively infrequently; (3) consumers are satisfied with high-efficiency appliances; and (4) consumers are satisfied with appliances that have fast cycle options. NEEA added that leveraged sales data from the Northwest, consumer use data from regional field studies (“RBSA”), surveys of online retail catalogs, technology research, and laboratory tear-down studies support these conclusions. (NEEA, No. 4 at p. 2)

AHAM asserted that for its members, the consumer is always top of mind, and accordingly, manufacturers make appliances that last longer, perform better, and respond to consumer needs and preferences. AHAM stated that manufacturers pay careful attention to consumer needs and desires for particular features and utilities and products currently on the market have a demonstrated capability to achieve the recommended energy and water conservation standards and retain consumer satisfaction with a range of performance considerations, utilities, and features. (AHAM, No. 23 at pp. 1-2)

CEI asserted that DOE recently “relaxed” its test procedure for dishwashers by not including spots, streaks, and rack contact marks in the calculation of the cleaning index. CEI also commented that although DOE presented data showing at least one dishwasher model that has a quick cycle that meets the cleaning index criteria established by the DOE test procedure, CEI stated that it is not aware of any manufacturer claiming that its quick cycle is equivalent to the normal cycle. CEI also questioned why such a cycle would not be designated as the normal cycle. CEI asserted that DOE suggested that a dishwasher with a normal cycle that takes 2 hours or more, accompanied by a quick cycle that can meet the criteria of the new test procedure at appendix C2, is good enough to comply with the law. CEI further asserted that EPCA does not allow for any diminished features and performance resulting from its standards and claimed that a quick cycle meeting the criteria of the appendix C2 test procedure represents a decline in performance as compared to the normal cycle. CEI commented that such a decline justifies creating a separate short-cycle product class for dishwashers. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 6)

Contrary to CEI's claim, DOE has not “relaxed” its test procedure. As discussed previously, the new appendix C2 test procedure established by the January 2023 TP Final Rule is the first time DOE has finalized a test procedure that evaluates dishwasher cleaning performance and specifies a minimum cleaning index threshold that ensures that test results produced by the test procedure are representative of consumer use and consumer expectations of a normal cycle.
15

The cleaning performance threshold discussed in the October 2020 Final Rule, which was based on using the 2014 ENERGY STAR Test Method, does not correspond to the cleaning performance threshold that DOE has

since determined to be indicative of consumer-acceptable cleaning performance for a normal cycle. Translating the October 2020 Final Rule data set to reflect cleaning indices equivalent to cleaning indices obtained using the appendix C2 test method was necessary to provide a consistent data set with which to identify dishwasher cycles that meet consumer expectations of a normal cycle.

15
DOE's dishwasher test procedure at appendix C1 and appendix C2 requires that testing be conducted without the use of rinse aid consistent with the specifications in the industry test standard, AHAM DW-1-2020, “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Dishwashers.” In the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE found the use of rinse aid, or lack thereof, impacts the scoring of spots or streaks. As a result, DOE adopted a cleaning index calculation that scores only soils and does not include the scores of spots, streaks, or rack contact marks on the glassware. 88 FR 3234, 3248.

Further, DOE did not suggest that a dishwasher with a normal cycle that takes 2 hours or more, accompanied by a quick cycle that provides a short-cycle feature, is “good enough to comply with the law.” Rather, DOE concluded that the availability of a short-cycle feature that meets consumer expectations of a normal cycle (
i.e.,
completely washing a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less) while using no more energy and water than the current standard level indicates that it is technologically feasible to design a “normal cycle” with a cycle time of 60 minutes or less without diminishing any features or compromising dishwasher performance. In other words, energy conservation standards are not precluding manufacturers from designing a normal cycle with a cycle time of 60 minutes or less, and therefore the short-cycle feature would not justify less stringent standards.

In response to CEI's question about why such a cycle would not be designated on the normal cycle, or why no manufacturer is claiming that its quick cycle is equivalent to the normal cycle, DOE reiterates its conclusion that the limited availability of short-cycle features on the current market is not indicative of energy conservation standards precluding or discouraging the availability of such feature, but rather reflects the prioritization of product offerings by manufacturers commensurate with a relatively low level of market demand for this feature in comparison to other features more important to consumers. 89 FR 88661, 88666.

In conclusion, based on the available test data—which demonstrate that it is feasible to design a short-cycle feature while meeting current standards—as well as stakeholder comments in response to the March 2024 RFI and November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and market survey data, DOE has determined that (1) a short-cycle feature that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less is technologically feasible; (2) current standards do not prevent dishwasher manufacturers from providing such a short-cycle feature; and (3) there is a dishwasher currently available on the market that provides such a short-cycle feature and meets the currently applicable energy and water standard.

For these reasons, DOE has determined that a short-cycle feature for dishwashers does not justify a separate product class with different standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).

3. Response to Other Comments

In the sections that follow, DOE addresses comments received in response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal that pertain to other dishwasher topics discussed in this document.

a. Historical Cycle Time Trends

In its March 2018 Petition, CEI presented dishwasher cycle time data compiled from annual Consumer Reports data. These data include the range of cycle times measured by Consumer Reports as well as an approximate market-average cycle time for each year. Based on the Consumer Reports data, CEI concluded that the historical increase in the average normal cycle time demonstrates that current standards have precluded manufacturers from offering products with short cycles as the normal cycle.
16

In particular, CEI noted that the average cycle time had not been about 1 hour since 1983, before any standards were adopted; average cycle time in 2018 was 2 hours and 20 minutes, and, according to CEI, had more than doubled due to current energy standards. CEI further asserted that when a new energy standard is adopted by DOE, the result is an increase in dishwasher cycle time. CEI also asserted that dishwasher average cycle times of less than 1 hour had been eliminated from the marketplace.

16
The March 2018 Petition is available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-0006,
page 4.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE discussed that market-average cycle time is not an appropriate indicator to demonstrate any causality with standards. Instead, the
minimum
available cycle time is a more appropriate indicator to assess any impact of standards on dishwasher cycle time, because the minimum available cycle time on the market can provide an indication of the technological feasibility of providing shorter cycle times while meeting more stringent standards. Whereas trends in market-average cycle times have largely been driven by other factors, discussed in the following paragraphs. 89 FR 88661, 88668.

Based on the data shared by CEI in the March 2018 Petition, DOE noted in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal that minimum cycle times (as represented by the lowest cycle time measured by Consumer Reports each year) have generally increased only during periods when standards were not amended. For example, the minimum cycle time—as apparent in the Consumer Reports data—increased from 65 minutes in 1993 to 85 minutes in 2006, a period during which there were no changes to dishwasher standards. Furthermore, the minimum cycle time as measured by Consumer Reports has decreased over the past 15 years, even while standards became more stringent during that time period.
Id.

Additionally, in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE noted that the short-cycle feature currently available on the market has a cycle time (41 minutes) that is lower than the minimum cycle time measured by Consumer Reports in 1983 (55 minutes), prior to the introduction of any standards for dishwashers. DOE stated that this demonstrates that amended standards have not prevented the technological feasibility of providing a short-cycle feature even as dishwasher standards have become more stringent, and even as the market-weighted average cycle time has increased due to other factors (
see
discussion in the following paragraphs regarding the potential impact of dishwasher sound levels and detergent formulation on cycle time). In other words, the totality of data available indicate that current standards are not precluding manufacturers from offering dishwashers with a short-cycle feature.
Id.

In response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, CEI commented that DOE should address the issue of longer cycle times that CEI asserted have been caused by previous appliance regulations by creating new standards that are achievable by short-cycle product classes. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 1) CEI also asserted that the impact of previous dishwasher standards on cycle time is an example of a DOE appliance regulation that “crossed the line,” and stated that DOE should withdraw the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and instead consider a rulemaking process to establish standards for the short-cycle product classes. (
Id.
at p. 7)

CEI also commented that dishwashers that can complete a normal cycle in 1 hour or less were widely available prior to the imposition of DOE standards but are not available anymore. Therefore, according to CEI, a separate standard for

short-cycle product classes is required. (
Id.
at p. 7)

As stated in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE reiterates that based on the data shared by CEI in the March 2018 Petition, minimum cycle times have generally increased during periods when standards were not amended. In fact, minimum cycle time as measured by Consumer Reports has decreased over the past 15 years, even while standards became more stringent during that time period. 89 FR 88661, 88668. The Consumer Reports data shared by CEI in the March 2018 Petition do not support CEI's assumption that minimum cycle times have increased due to DOE standards. On the contrary, the Consumer Reports data specifically fail to show a causal linkage between technologically feasible
(i.e.,
minimum) cycle times and DOE standards, because minimum cycle time increases generally occurred without a change in standards, yet decreases in minimum cycle time took place while standards became more stringent. Thus, DOE concludes, consistent with its position in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, that the technological feasibility of providing dishwasher cycles with shorter durations has not been impacted due to DOE standards.

Further, as discussed, DOE has identified at least one model currently available on the market that provides a short-cycle feature and has a cycle time of 41 minutes, demonstrating that dishwasher standards are not preventing manufacturers from designing a dishwasher that can completely wash a normally soiled load in 1 hour or less. Therefore, a short-cycle feature for dishwashers does not justify a separate product class with separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).

Regarding CEI's assertion that dishwashers that can complete a normal cycle in 1 hour or less were widely available prior to the imposition of DOE standards, the data provided by CEI do not support this conclusion. An analysis of the Consumer Reports data presented by CEI in the March 2018 Petition indicates that only 3 out of 16 models from 1983 had cycle times of 60 minutes or less, and only 1 out of 20 models from 1990 had a cycle time of 60 minutes or less. These data do not provide any indication that dishwashers with normal cycle times of 60 minutes or less were “widely available” in the past, particularly since the data do not include any shipments information. Instead, the Consumer Reports data provided by CEI are consistent with DOE's tentative findings in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal that there is a lack of correlation solely between cycle time, energy/water use, and cleaning performance. The August 1983 Consumer Reports
17

and May 1990 Consumer Reports
18

indicate that all 4 models with cycle times of 60 minutes or less had only “average” washing performance based on a rating scale of “worse,” “bad,” “average,” “good,” and “better.” In contrast, some of the units with “good” cleaning performance (
i.e.,
better than “average”) used less energy and water than units with “average” cleaning performance—and in fact were some of the most energy and water efficient units of that time.

17
Consumer Reports, “Dishwashers,” Consumer Reports, Aug. 1983, at p. 406.

18
Consumer Reports, “Dishwashers Plain and Fancy,” Consumer Reports, May 1990, at p. 342.

Specifically, DOE reiterates the discussion provided by ASAP
et al.'
s
19

comment in response to the March 2024 RFI that was presented in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal. DOE notes that ASAP
et al.
asserted that the increase in cycle time was likely driven by other factors, such as consumer preference for quieter products and changes to detergent formulation. ASAP
et al.
cited
Reviewed,
20

which stated that older dishwashers had sound levels around 60 decibels, while modern dishwashers average between 40 and 50 decibels. ASAP
et al.
also cited
Reviewed
to explain that “there are lots of ways to reduce noise, but most of them involve reducing the machine's cleaning power, and that in turn means lengthening cycle times to compensate.” (ASAP
et al.,
No. 8 at p. 4) ASAP
et al.
also stated that by 2010, many states had banned the sale of dishwasher detergents containing phosphates, which resulted in newer detergents that use enzymes. ASAP
et al.
cited information from
Reviewed
explaining that enzyme-based detergents require more time to work, lengthening cycle times. (
Id.
) ASAP
et al.
further commented that short cycle times would likely result in trade-offs with other aspects of dishwasher performance such as cleaning performance or noise. ASAP
et al.
asserted that quick cycles would likely be noisier, because one way of reducing cycle time is to increase mechanical action, which in turn increases noise levels. (ASAP
et al.,
No. 8 at p. 6)

19
Note that when responding to the March 2024 RFI, the comments from ASAP
et al.
included Natural Resources Defense Council and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority in addition to the commenters identified in this document.

20

Reviewed
is part of the USA TODAY Network.
See reviewed.usatoday.com.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE recognized that dishwasher manufacturers design dishwashers to achieve many different performance requirements (
e.g.,
cleaning performance, drying performance, noise, efficiency, cycle time). DOE reiterated that one of the units in DOE's test sample meets the cleaning index threshold specified in appendix C2 while also having a cycle time of less than 60 minutes and meeting the current standards, demonstrating that current standards do not require manufacturers to trade off cleaning performance with cycle time. However, as noted in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE did not collect noise data in its previous testing so that it could not independently corroborate the extent to which there may be a trade-off between noise and cycle time. 89 FR 88661, 88678.

In response to this discussion in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, CEI commented that DOE asserted that cycle times have not increased due to historical dishwasher standards (as conceded by DOE in the past, according to CEI) but they may be a side-effect to creating quieter dishwashers. CEI stated that consumer preference for quieter dishwashers in lieu of longer cycle times was not raised in the January 2022 Final Rule. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 4)

CEI asserted also that even if dishwasher cycle time has increased to make dishwashers quieter, EPCA would still require a 1-hour standard because EPCA does not allow for the sacrifice of one performance feature in pursuit of another. CEI further asserted that there is public dissatisfaction with longer cycle times and that noise levels would need to be factored into determining the stringency of the standard for the short-cycle product class. (
Id.
at p. 5)

CEI stated that DOE's reference to stakeholder comments that longer cycle times may have been necessitated by new dishwasher detergent requirements in some States conflicts with DOE's earlier acknowledgement in the 2016 DOE Technical Support Document that longer cycle times are the result of DOE's energy and water conservation standards. CEI further commented that even if this were true, DOE should consider the impact of new detergent formulations when establishing a standard for the dishwashers short-cycle product class rather than foregoing the product class altogether. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 5)

Contrary to CEI's assertion, DOE did not acknowledge that longer cycle times are the result of DOE's energy and water conservation standards in a technical

support document (“TSD”) posted in the docket of the final determination published on December 13, 2016 (“December 2016 Final Determination”) in which DOE determined that more stringent residential dishwasher standards would not be economically justified at the time. 81 FR 90072. In the December 2016 Final Determination TSD, DOE explained the “control strategies” technology option as follows:

. . . effective dishwashing requires water, heat, mechanical action (spraying of water), time, and detergent. Manufacturers may adjust the controls of a residential dishwasher to limit the amount of water used, or the set-point temperature of the wash or rinse water. This improves efficiency by decreasing the amount of energy associated with water heating. To help compensate for the negative impact on cleaning performance associated with decreasing water use and water temperature, manufacturers will typically increase the cycle time. This allows more time for the smaller volume of water to be circulated within the cabinet, helping to maintain wash performance.
21

21
DOE discussed technology options in Chapter 3 of the TSD. Available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0021-0029.

This discussion in the December 2016 Final Determination TSD explains that manufacturers
may
(emphasis added) adjust dishwasher controls to improve the water and energy efficiency of a dishwasher; this discussion was not intended to suggest that implementing control strategies would be necessary, or would be the only design pathway to improve efficiency. Further, DOE also noted that the implementation of control strategies would
typically
(emphasis added) increase cycle time, not that it would necessarily increase cycle time. The discussion in the December 2016 Final Determination TSD describes one potential pathway to DOE evaluated to improve efficiency at the time of the December 2016 Final Determination, but it was not the only pathway to improved efficiency. Manufacturers are free to choose any design options to meet or exceed a given water and energy efficiency standard.

Finally, as discussed in section II.A.2 of this document, DOE's most recent testing and analyses of test data show that it is technologically feasible to achieve cycle times as low as 41 minutes while meeting the current DOE standard and also providing a consumer-acceptable level of cleaning performance (
i.e.,
it is technologically feasible to design a short-cycle feature while meeting current standards). It is also important to note that, in the April 2024 Dishwashers Final Rule, DOE found that the amended standards adopted in that rule do not have a negative impact on cleaning performance because technology options likely to be used to meet the amended standards for dishwashers would not have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to subgroups of consumers and the dishwashers test procedure at appendix C2 requires that a test cycle achieve a minimum cleaning performance threshold to determine if a dishwasher, when tested according to the DOE test procedure, completely washes a normally soiled load of dishes, meaning that the standards cannot compromise the utility that consumers expect from dishwashers. 89 FR 31398, 31436. Therefore, even if there was a potential for a negative impact on cleaning performance associated with decreasing water use and water temperature, that potential is no longer applicable as dishwashers must meet the cleaning performance threshold.

Finally, CEI commented that dishwasher features other than cycle times do not negate DOE's obligation to set a separate standard for short-cycle dishwashers. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 4) CEI referenced comments in the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule and data submitted in response to the March 2024 RFI to support CEI's assertion that consumers are not satisfied with current cycle times. (
Id.
at pp. 4-5) CEI concluded that the DOE should establish a standard for short-cycle dishwashers to respond to the Fifth Circuit's January 8, 2024, decision that DOE did not consider any alternatives than repealing the Short-Cycle Final Rules. (
Id.
at p. 5)

With respect to the comment from CEI regarding DOE's obligation to set standards for short-cycle dishwashers, DOE notes that its obligation is to follow its statutory authority under EPCA. As DOE stated in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and confirms in this document, DOE reiterated that cycle time is a performance-related feature of dishwashers in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B), but that is only the first step for establishing a product class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 89 FR 88661, 88665. Contrary to the assertion from CEI, the existence of a performance-related feature is not enough to
justify a separate product class.
DOE then needed to evaluate whether a different standard level is justified for short-cycle products.
Id.
Because available test data, market survey data, and stakeholder comments in response to the March 2024 RFI and November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, show that it is technically feasible for a short-cycle feature to completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes in 60 minutes or less, current standards do not prevent dishwasher manufacturers from providing such a short-cycle feature.
In fact,
there is a dishwasher currently available on the market that provides such a short-cycle feature and meets the currently applicable energy and water standards. For these reasons, DOE has determined that a short-cycle feature for dishwashers does not justify a separate product class with separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).

B. Residential Clothes Washers

The following sections apply DOE's authority under EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) to determine whether a “short-cycle” feature for RCWs is a performance-related feature that justifies the establishment of separate product classes. DOE considers a short-cycle feature for top-loading RCWs to be a cycle that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing in less than 30 minutes, and for front-loading RCWs to be a cycle that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing in less than 45 minutes.
22

DOE first reiterates its prior determinations that cycle time is a performance-related feature of RCWs and details its specific consideration of the short-cycle feature (
see
section II.B.1 of this document). As discussed in section II.B.2 of this document, DOE determines in this analysis that the short-cycle feature does not justify a different standard. Data and information from the Short-Cycle Final Rules, the RCW direct final rule published on March 15, 2024 (“March 2024 RCW Direct Final Rule”; 89 FR 19026), and the March 2024 RFI show that RCWs currently available with a short normal cycle (
i.e.,
with a cycle time less than 30 minutes for top-loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes for front-loading RCWs) can meet the current energy conservation standards using the same design strategies as other RCWs of comparable efficiency without a short-cycle feature.

22
This consideration corresponds to DOE's definition of “normal cycle” in section 1 of the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix J2 (“appendix J2”), which is defined as “the cycle recommended by the manufacturer [. . .] for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing,” among other criteria.

1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature

DOE first considered whether cycle time is a performance-related feature of RCWs in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). Consistent with DOE's

assessment in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and in previous rulemakings, discussed as follows, DOE reiterates that cycle time is a performance-related feature of RCWs.

DOE has previously considered cycle time as a consumer utility for the purposes of establishing product classes for RCWs. In a direct final rule published on May 31, 2012, (“May 2012 Direct Final Rule”) DOE determined that the longer cycle times of front-loading RCWs versus cycle times for top-loading RCWs are likely to impact consumer utility. 77 FR 32308, 32319. Because the wash cycle times for front-loaders arise from the reduced mechanical action of agitation as compared to top-loaders, DOE stated that it believes that such longer cycles may be required to achieve the necessary cleaning, and thereby constitute a performance-related utility of front-loading versus top-loading RCWs pursuant to the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 77 FR 32308, 32319.

In a NOPR published on August 13, 2020 (“August 2020 NOPR”), DOE discussed that consumer use of RCWs is similar to that of dishwashers, in that the products provide consumer utility over discrete cycles with programmed cycle times, and consumers run these cycles multiple times per week on average. As such, the impact of cycle time on consumer utility identified by CEI in its March 2018 Petition regarding dishwashers is also relevant to RCWs. Based on these considerations, DOE concluded that cycle time for RCWs is a performance-related feature for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 85 FR 49297, 49299.

DOE reiterated this conclusion in the December 2020 Final Rule. Specifically, DOE concluded in the December 2020 Final Rule that RCWs with a short normal cycle (
i.e.,
with a cycle time less than 30 minutes for top-loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes for front-loading RCWs) provide a distinct utility to consumers that other RCWs do not provide, and that consumers receive a utility from the short normal cycle feature to support the establishment of new product classes under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). 85 FR 81359, 81363-81364. The “normal cycle” refers to the cycle recommended to the consumer for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing. In the January 2022 Final Rule, DOE did not question the validity of those prior determinations made that short cycles provide a performance-related feature. 87 FR 2673, 2682.

In response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, the CA IOUs stated that they continue to disagree with DOE's determination that cycle time is a performance-related feature. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2) The CA IOUs further asserted that DOE or CEI did not include sufficient justification in the October 2020 Final Rule for why a 30-minute or 45-minute cycle time threshold offered a unique consumer utility. The CA IOUs stated that DOE should assess the merits of the selected cycle time threshold and the consumer utility that it may or may not provide. (
Id.
at pp. 2-3)

AHAM commented that it continues to believe that cycle time is an important consumer feature. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 2) AHAM also commented that consumers are satisfied with existing normal cycle times and most products also have short-cycle options for when quicker cycles are needed. (
Id.
at p. 1)

Ravnitzky commented that in his experience, he occasionally uses the shorter cycles on his RCW when the clothing is not heavily soiled or when the task needs to be completed quickly. Ravnitzky further commented that these occasions are relatively infrequent and that for the majority of the time, he relies on the standard cycles to ensure thorough cleaning and drying. (Ravnitzky, No. 15 at p. 1)

In response to the comment from the CA IOUs, DOE notes that the specific short-cycle times considered, less than 30 minutes for top-loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes for front-loading RCWs, are less than the average cycle time for these products.
23

As such, DOE believes these short-cycle times can provide utility to some consumers,
e.g.,
consumers needing to complete multiple cycles in a limited amount of time. For the reasons stated in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, August 2020 NOPR, and December 2020 Final Rule, and consistent with the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE reconfirms in this confirmation of withdrawal that cycle time is a performance-related feature of RCWs for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).

23
The average cycle times among units within DOE's top-loading and front-loading RCW test samples were 49 and 59 minutes, respectively.
See
Method 2: Weighted Average Cycle Time column in Table II.1 and Table II.2 of the August 2020 NOPR. 85 FR 49297, 49301-49302.

In the sections that follow, DOE evaluates whether such a short-cycle feature justifies separate product classes in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).

2. Justification of Different Standards for Residential Clothes Washers With a Short-Cycle Feature

As discussed, EPCA authorizes DOE to prescribe a higher or lower standard than that which applies (or would apply) for such type (or class) for any group of covered products which have 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 considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (
Id.
)

DOE stated in the August 2020 NOPR, and reiterated in the December 2020 Final Rule, that it presumed manufacturers were implementing the shortest possible cycle times that enabled a clothes washer to achieve satisfactory cleaning performance (and other aspects of clothes washer performance) while meeting the applicable energy and water conservation standards. 85 FR 81359, 81361. DOE stated its belief that the current energy conservation standards may have been precluding or discouraging manufacturers from introducing models to the market with substantially shorter cycle times.
Id.
DOE further stated in the December 2020 Final Rule that its actions (
i.e.,
establishing short-cycle product classes for top-loading and front-loading RCWs) were intended to incentivize manufacturers to provide consumers with new options when purchasing RCWs, asserting that creation of these new product classes would incentivize manufacturers to develop innovative products with short cycle times for those consumers that receive a value from the time saved washing and drying their clothing.
Id.
at 85 FR 81360-81361. DOE further stated its intent to determine the specific energy and water consumption limits for the new product classes in a separate rulemaking.
Id.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE conducted an analysis of the energy and water use of a short-cycle feature for RCWs to evaluate whether different (
i.e.,
comparatively less stringent) standards would be warranted for RCWs that provide a short-cycle feature. 89 FR 88661, 88670.

As discussed in the previous section of this document, DOE has determined that a normal cycle of less than 30 minutes for top-loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes for front-loading RCWs is a performance-related feature that provides consumer utility for the purpose of consideration of potential product class distinction under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE next evaluated whether RCWs with a short-cycle feature necessitate more energy and water use than RCWs without such feature, which could justify a comparatively less stringent standard for RCWs that provide such a feature.
Id.

To evaluate the energy and water use of a short-cycle feature in comparison to the currently applicable energy and water standards, in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE considered all data available from recent rulemakings, including DOE's data from testing conducted in support of the December 2020 Final Rule and the March 2024 RCW Direct Final Rule and confidential data received from AHAM.
24

Id.
All RCW test data evaluated in this manner was based on testing of the normal cycle as defined in section 1 of appendix J2, corresponding to the cycle recommended by the manufacturer for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing.

24
DOE test data from the December 2020 Final Rule are available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0001-0007
. Information on the March 2024 RCW Direct Final Rule models is available in the technical support document for the March 2024 RCW Direct Final Rule, which is available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0510
.

From among DOE's test samples, DOE identified 3 top-loading RCWs and 9 front-loading RCWs that provide a short-cycle feature. Specifically, these units have a normal cycle time of less than 30 minutes for the top-loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes for the front-loading RCWs.
25

Id.

25
DOE's cycle time data for RCWs is available in the Technical Appendix to this document, available in the docket for this rulemaking at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2024-BT-STD-0002
.

From AHAM's test sample, DOE identified 1 top-loading standard-size RCW with a normal cycle time of less than 30 minutes and 4 front-loading RCWs with a normal cycle time of less than 45 minutes.
Id.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE then assessed the energy and water use of the short-cycle feature on these units in comparison to the currently applicable DOE standards.
Id.
For all of these units, the short-cycle feature uses no more energy and water than the maximum allowable standard levels for standard-size RCWs, demonstrating that providing a short-cycle feature consistent with consumer expectations of a normal cycle (
i.e.,
a cycle that can completely wash a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing in less than 30 or 45 minutes for top-loading and front-loading RCWs respectively) does not necessitate using more energy and water than an RCW without such feature that meets the current standards. DOE further evaluated the technologies and design strategies used by these RCW models and tentatively concluded that these units do not incorporate any proprietary technologies or design strategies and are designed no differently than other RCW models of comparable efficiency without a short-cycle feature.
Id.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE tentatively concluded that the availability of this feature currently on the market—at energy and water levels that comply with the current standards—in units with no identifiable proprietary designs or control strategies demonstrates that an RCW with a short-cycle feature does not inherently use more energy and water than an RCW without such feature, and that the current RCW standards do not preclude manufacturers from offering a short-cycle feature (
i.e.,
a normal cycle time of less than 30 minutes for top-loading RCWs and less than 45 minutes for front-loading RCWs).
Id.
On the basis that both top-loading and front-loading RCWs with short-cycle features are currently available on the market with no identifiable proprietary designs or control strategies, DOE tentatively determined that a short-cycle feature is technologically feasible and that current standards do not prevent manufacturers from providing a short-cycle feature.
Id.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, based on the available test data—which demonstrate that it is feasible to design a short-cycle feature while meeting current standards—DOE tentatively determined that (1) a short-cycle feature for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up to a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing is technologically feasible; (2) current standards do not prevent RCW manufacturers from providing such a short-cycle feature; and (3) multiple RCW models are currently available on the market that provide such a short-cycle feature that meet the currently applicable energy and water standards.
Id.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE requested comment on these proposed determinations.
Id.

The CA IOUs commented that DOE had demonstrated that the applicable standards for RCWs do not preclude manufacturers from developing products that meet the intention of the short-cycle product classes and agreed that the technological feasibility of developing such products is the appropriate factor when determining if a performance characteristic merits a different standard level. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2)

ASAP
et al.
commented in support of DOE's proposal to confirm the withdrawal of the short-cycle product classes for RCWs on the basis that there is at least one model available on the market that provides the short-cycle feature and uses less energy and water than the current standard. ASAP
et al.
stated that the availability of such a model demonstrates that the current standards for these products are not precluding manufacturers from offering products with short cycle times and good product performance on a normal cycle. (ASAP
et al.,
No. 21 at pp. 1-2)

CEC agreed with DOE that standards do not impact the ability of manufacturers to provide RCWs with the short-cycle feature, as evidenced by existing product offerings. CEC further asserted that manufacturer comments on the rulemaking make it clear that short-cycle product classes are neither necessary nor warranted for RCWs, and accordingly, separate product classes are not justified. (CEC, No. 17 at p. 1)

NEEA supported DOE's proposal in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal to eliminate “short-cycle” product classes for RCWs. NEEA stated that its comments build upon past NEEA letters submitted to DOE, which demonstrated that short-cycle product classes were unnecessary for these products because (1) consumers already have access to short cycle settings on RCWs; (2) consumers use short cycles relatively infrequently; (3) consumers are satisfied with high-efficiency appliances; (4) consumers are satisfied with appliances that have fast cycle options; and (5) cost-effective technologies are available to improve the efficiency of RCWs while reducing cycle times. NEEA added that leveraged sales data from the Northwest, consumer use data from regional field studies (“RBSA”), surveys of online retail catalogs, technology research, and laboratory tear-down studies support these conclusions. (NEEA, No. 4 at p. 2)

AHAM asserted that for its members, the consumer is always top of mind, and accordingly, manufacturers make appliances that last longer, perform better, and respond to consumer needs and preferences. AHAM stated that

manufacturers pay careful attention to consumer needs and desires for particular features and utilities, and products currently on the market have a demonstrated capability to achieve the recommended energy and water conservation standards and retain consumer satisfaction with a range of performance considerations, utilities, and features. (AHAM, No. 23 at pp. 1-2)

Ravnitzky supported DOE's tentative determination that a short-cycle feature for RCWs does not justify a separate product class with separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and to not impose separate requirements for short-cycle products. (Ravnitzky, No. 15 at p. 1)

CEI commented that although its comment focuses on dishwashers (see section II.A of this document), it believes there are equally valid reasons for setting separate new standards protecting faster RCWs. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 3)

In response to the comment from CEI, DOE notes that all of the data and information that CEI submitted pertained to dishwashers, and that CEI did not provide any data or information specific to RCWs that would support its assertion regarding new standards for RCWs.

In conclusion, for the reasons discussed in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and in this document, DOE has determined that a short-cycle feature for RCWs does not justify separate product classes with separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).

C. Consumer Clothes Dryers

The following sections apply DOE's authority under EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) to determine whether a “short-cycle” feature for consumer clothes dryers is a performance-related feature that justifies the establishment of a separate product class. DOE considers a short-cycle feature for consumer clothes dryers to be a normal cycle that offers cycle times of less than 30 minutes. DOE first reiterates its prior determinations that cycle time is a performance-related feature of consumer clothes dryers and details its specific consideration of the short-cycle feature (
see
section II.C.1 of this document). As discussed in section II.C.2 of this document, DOE determines in this analysis that the short-cycle feature does not justify a different standard. Data and information from the Short-Cycle Final Rules, the consumer clothes dryers direct final rule published on March 12, 2024 (“March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule”; 89 FR 18164), and the March 2024 RFI show that products with a normal cycle of less than 30 minutes can meet the current energy conservation standards using the same design strategies as other consumer clothes dryers of comparable efficiency without a short-cycle feature.

1. Cycle Time as a Performance-Related Feature

DOE first considered whether cycle time is a performance-related feature of consumer clothes dryers in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B). Consistent with DOE's assessment in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and in previous rulemakings, discussed as follows, DOE reiterates that cycle time is a performance-related feature of consumer clothes dryers.

In the August 2020 NOPR, DOE discussed that consumer use of consumer clothes dryers is similar to that of dishwashers, in that the products provide consumer utility over discrete cycles with programmed cycle times, and consumers run these cycles multiple times per week on average. As such, the impact of cycle time on consumer utility identified by CEI in its March 2018 Petition regarding dishwashers is also relevant to consumer clothes dryers. Based on these considerations, DOE concluded that cycle time for consumer clothes dryers is a performance-related feature for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 85 FR 49297, 49299.

DOE reiterated this conclusion in the December 2020 Final Rule. 85 FR 81359, 81363-81364. Specifically, DOE concluded in the December 2020 Final Rule that consumer clothes dryers with a short normal cycle (
i.e.,
with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes) provide a distinct utility to consumers that other consumer clothes dryers do not provide, and that consumers receive a utility from the short normal cycle feature to support the establishment of a new product class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B).
Id.
at 85 FR 81363, 81364. The “normal cycle” refers to the cycle recommended by the manufacturer to the consumer for drying cotton or linen clothes, among other criteria. In the January 2022 Final Rule, DOE did not question the validity of those prior determinations made about whether that short cycles provide a performance-related feature. 87 FR 2673, 2682.

In response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, the CA IOUs stated that they continue to disagree with DOE's determination that cycle time is a performance-related feature. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that the March 2018 Petition from CEI, the Short-Cycle Final Rules, and the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal did not include sufficient justification from DOE or CEI for why these specific short-cycle times offered a unique consumer utility. (
Id.
) The CA IOUs requested that DOE assess the merits of the selected cycle time delineations and the consumer utility they may or may not provide in future rulemakings. (
Id.
)

AHAM commented that it continues to believe that cycle time is an important consumer feature. (AHAM, No. 23 at p. 2) AHAM also commented that consumers are satisfied with existing normal cycle times and most products also have short-cycle options for when quicker cycles are needed. (
Id.
at p. 1)

In response to the comment from the CA IOUs, DOE notes that the specific short-cycle time considered, less than 30 minutes for consumer clothes dryers, is less than the average cycle time for this product.
26

As such, DOE believes this short-cycle can provide utility to some consumers,
e.g.,
consumers needing to complete multiple cycles in a limited amount of time. For the reasons stated in the August 2020 NOPR and December 2020 Final Rule, and consistent with the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE reconfirms in this confirmation of withdrawal its previous determinations that cycle time is a performance-related feature of consumer clothes dryers for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).

26
The average cycle times among units within DOE's vented electric standard-size and vented gas clothes dryer test samples were 48 and 55 minutes, respectively.
See
Table II.3 and Table II.4 of the August 2020 NOPR. 85 FR 49297, 49303-49304.

In the sections that follow, DOE evaluates whether such a short-cycle feature justifies separate product classes in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).

2. Justification of Different Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers With a Short-Cycle Feature

As discussed, EPCA authorizes DOE to prescribe a higher or lower standard than that which applies (or would apply) for such type (or class) for any group of covered products which have 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 considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (
Id.
)

DOE stated in the August 2020 NOPR, and reiterated in the December 2020 Final Rule, that vented electric standard-size and vented gas clothes dryers that comply with the current energy conservation standards exhibit cycle times of approximately 30 minutes or longer. 85 FR 81359, 81361. Based on a presumption that manufacturers were already implementing the shortest possible cycle times that enabled a clothes dryer to achieve satisfactory drying performance (and other aspects of clothes dryer performance) while meeting the applicable energy conservation standards, DOE asserted that the standards may have discouraged manufacturers from developing clothes dryers for consumers that provide the utility of 30-minute-or-less cycle times.
Id.
DOE further stated in the December 2020 Final Rule that its actions (
i.e.,
establishing short-cycle product classes for consumer clothes dryers) were intended to incentivize manufacturers to provide consumers with new options when purchasing clothes dryers, asserting that creation of this new product class would incentivize manufacturers to develop innovative products with short cycle times for those consumers that receive a value from the time saved washing and drying their clothing.
Id.
at 85 FR 81360-81361. DOE further stated its intent to determine the specific energy conservation standards of the new product classes in a separate rulemaking.
Id.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE conducted an analysis of the energy use of a short-cycle feature for consumer clothes dryers to evaluate whether different (
i.e.,
comparatively less stringent) standards would be warranted for consumer clothes dryers that provide a short-cycle feature. 89 FR 88661, 88672. As discussed in the previous section of this document, DOE has determined that a short-cycle feature on a consumer clothes dryer is a performance-related feature that provides consumer utility for the purpose of consideration of potential product class distinction under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE next evaluated whether consumer clothes dryers with a short-cycle feature necessitate more energy use than consumer clothes dryers without such feature, which could justify a comparatively less stringent standard for consumer clothes dryers that provide such a feature.
Id.

To evaluate the energy use of a short-cycle feature in comparison to the currently applicable energy standards, in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE considered all data available from recent rulemakings, including DOE's data from testing conducted in support of the December 2020 Final Rule, the March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule, and confidential data from AHAM.
Id.
at 89 FR 88673. All consumer clothes dryer test data evaluated in this manner was based on testing of the Normal cycle as defined in section 3.3.2 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2 (“appendix D2”), corresponding to the program labeled “normal” or, for clothes dryers that do not have a “normal” program, the cycle recommended by the manufacturer for drying cotton or linen clothes.
27

In addition, all test data represent cycles that achieve a final moisture content of 2 percent or less, which DOE has determined to be representative of the consumer-acceptable dryness level after completion of a drying cycle.

27
DOE notes that manufacturers will be required to use the test procedure at appendix D2 on and after March 1, 2028, which is the compliance date of the amended standards in March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule.
See
86 FR 56608; 89 FR 18164.

None of the units in DOE's test sample had a normal cycle time less than 30 minutes. However, from the confidential data received from AHAM, DOE identified 3 electric standard-size clothes dryers and 1 vented gas standard-size clothes dryer with normal cycle times of less than 30 minutes.
Id.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE then assessed the energy use of the short-cycle feature on these units in comparison to the current applicable DOE standards.
Id.
For all of these units, the short-cycle feature uses no more energy than the maximum allowable standard levels for standard-size consumer clothes dryers, demonstrating that providing a short-cycle feature consistent with consumer expectations of a normal cycle (
i.e.,
cycle recommended by the manufacturer to the consumer for drying cotton or linen clothes in less than 30 minutes) does not necessitate using more energy than a consumer clothes dryer without such feature that meets the current standards. In the engineering analysis conducted for the March 2024 Dryers Direct Final Rule, DOE did not identify any proprietary technologies in use among clothes dryers currently on the market. 89 FR 18164, 18178-18179. Therefore, although AHAM's data set did not identify specific model numbers associated with each data point, DOE noted in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal that it has no reason to believe that any proprietary technologies or design strategies are being used in those clothes dryer models with cycle times of less than 30 minutes. 89 FR 88661, 88673.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE tentatively concluded that the availability of a short-cycle feature currently on the market—at energy efficiency levels that comply with the current standards—in units with no identifiable proprietary designs or control strategies demonstrates that a consumer clothes dryer with a short-cycle feature does not inherently use more energy than a consumer clothes dryer without such a feature, and that the current consumer clothes dryer standards do not preclude manufacturers from offering a short-cycle feature (
i.e.,
a normal cycle time of less than 30 minutes).
Id.
On the basis that both vented electric standard-size and vented gas clothes dryers with short-cycle features (
i.e.,
normal cycles less than 30 minutes) are currently available on the market with no identifiable proprietary designs or control strategies, DOE tentatively determined that a short-cycle feature is technologically feasible and that current standards do not prevent manufacturers from providing a short-cycle feature.
Id.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE noted that it was not proposing to add any new regulations for consumer clothes dryers.
Id.
Instead, the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal reanalyzed the provisions of a previous rulemaking (
i.e.,
the January 2022 Final Rule) that withdrew short-cycle product classes.
Id.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, based on the available test data—which demonstrate that it is feasible to design a short-cycle feature while meeting current standards—DOE tentatively determined that (1) a short-cycle feature as the normal cycle for drying cotton or linen clothes is technologically feasible; (2) current standards do not prevent consumer clothes dryer manufacturers from providing such a short-cycle feature; and (3) multiple consumer clothes dryer models are currently available on the market that provide such a short-cycle feature that meet the currently applicable energy and water standards.
Id.
at 89 FR 88673-88674.

In the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, DOE requested comment on these proposed determinations.
Id.
at 89 FR 88674.

The CA IOUs commented that DOE had demonstrated that the applicable standards for consumer clothes dryers do not preclude manufacturers from developing products that meet the

intention of the short-cycle product classes and agreed that the technological feasibility of developing such products is the appropriate factor when determining if a performance characteristic merits a different standard level. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2)

ASAP
et al.
commented in support of DOE's proposal to confirm the withdrawal of the short-cycle product classes for consumer clothes dryers on the basis that there is at least one model available on the market that provides the short-cycle feature and uses less energy than the current standard. ASAP
et al.
noted that DOE considered a model to have the short-cycle feature only if it meets the consumer expectation of a normal cycle in 30 minutes or less. ASAP
et al.
stated that the availability of such a model demonstrates that the current standards for these products are not precluding manufacturers from offering products with short cycle times and good product performance on a normal cycle. (ASAP
et al.,
No. 21 at pp. 1-2)

CEC agreed with DOE that standards do not impact the ability of manufacturers to provide consumer clothes dryers with the short-cycle feature, as evidenced by existing product offerings. CEC further asserted that manufacturer comments on the rulemaking make it clear that short-cycle product classes are neither necessary nor warranted for consumer clothes dryers, and accordingly, separate product classes are not justified. (CEC, No. 17 at p. 1)

NEEA supported DOE's proposal in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal to eliminate “short-cycle” product classes for consumer clothes dryers. NEEA stated that its comments build upon past NEEA letters submitted to DOE, which demonstrated that short-cycle product classes were unnecessary for these products because (1) consumers already have access to short cycle settings on consumer clothes dryers; (2) consumers use short cycles relatively infrequently; (3) consumers are satisfied with high-efficiency appliances; (4) consumers are satisfied with appliances that have fast cycle options; and (5) cost-effective technologies are available to improve the efficiency of consumer clothes dryers while reducing cycle times. NEEA added that leveraged sales data from the Northwest, consumer use data from regional field studies (“RBSA”), surveys of online retail catalogs, technology research, and laboratory tear-down studies support these conclusions. (NEEA, No. 4 at p. 2)

AHAM asserted that for its members, the consumer is always top of mind, and accordingly, manufacturers make appliances that last longer, perform better, and respond to consumer needs and preferences. AHAM stated that manufacturers pay careful attention to consumer needs and desires for particular features and utilities and products currently on the market have a demonstrated capability to achieve the recommended energy and water conservation standards and retain consumer satisfaction with a range of performance considerations, utilities, and features. (AHAM, No. 23 at pp. 1-2)

Ravnitzky supported DOE's tentative determination that a short-cycle feature for consumer clothes dryers does not justify a separate product class with separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and to not impose separate requirements for short-cycle features. (Ravnitzky, No. 15 at p. 1)

CEI commented that although its comment focuses on dishwashers (see section II.A of this document), it believes there are equally valid reasons for setting separate new standards protecting faster consumer clothes dryers. (CEI, No. 18 at p. 3)

In response to the comment from CEI, DOE notes that all of the data and information that CEI submitted pertained to dishwashers, and that CEI did not provide any data or information specific to consumer clothes dryers that would support its assertion regarding new standards for consumer clothes dryers.

In conclusion, for the reasons discussed in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and in this document, DOE has determined that a short-cycle feature for consumer clothes dryers does not justify separate product classes with separate standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q).

D. Other Topics Addressed by the Fifth Circuit

1. Water Authority

In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit stated that “[n]o part of [EPCA] indicates Congress gave DOE power to regulate water use for energy-using appliances (like dishwashers and [RCWs]),” and stated that it is unclear that DOE has any statutory authority to regulate water use in dishwashers and RCWs.
See Louisiana,
90 F.4th at 470-471.

In response, DOE notes, as did the Fifth Circuit, that EPCA prescribed initial energy conservation standards with both energy and water use requirements for RCWs and dishwashers. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(A) and (10)(A)). In establishing energy conservation standards with both energy and water use performance standards for RCWs and dishwashers, Congress also directed DOE to “determin[e] whether to amend” those standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B) and (10)(B)) Congress's directive, in section 6295(g)(9)(B), to consider whether “to amend the standards in effect for RCWs,” and in section 6295(g)(10)(B), to consider whether “to amend the standards for dishwashers,” refers to “the standards” established in the immediately preceding paragraphs, where Congress established energy conservation standards with
both
energy and water use performance standards for RCWs and dishwashers. Indeed, the energy and water use performance standards for RCWs (both top-loading and front-loading) are each contained within a single subparagraph, as are the energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers (both standard-size and compact-size). (
See id.
) Accordingly, DOE's authority, under 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B) and (10)(B), includes consideration of amended energy and water use performance standards for RCWs and dishwashers, respectively.

Similarly, DOE's authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m) to amend “standards” for covered products includes amending both the energy and water use performance standards for RCWs and dishwashers. Neither section 6295(g)(9)(B) or (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)(9)(B) and (10)(B), or simply “standards,” 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B), which may include both energy and water use performance standards.

Accordingly, DOE noted in the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal that it had considered (where appropriate) whether the relevant short-cycle features justify both different water and energy standards. 89 FR 88661, 88676.

In response to the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal, AWE commented supporting DOE's continued attention to dishwasher and RCW water use. AWE asserted that the existing water consumption standards for dishwashers and RCWs are well within DOE's authority, notwithstanding the Fifth Circuit's dictum. (AWE, No. 20 at p. 4) AWE asserted that the Fifth Circuit's suggestion that DOE has authority to regulate water use only for showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals is incorrect. (
Id.
at pp. 1-2)

AWE stated that although the Fifth Circuit's January 8, 2024, decision included dictum suggesting DOE has

authority over water use only for showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals, the Fifth Circuit did not have the benefit of argument and full information about the basis for DOE's water regulation, as the hypothesis about DOE's authority was not raised by parties in the litigation. (AWE, No. 20 at p. 1)

AWE stated that, in the April 2024 Dishwashers Direct Final Rule and March 2024 RCW Direct Final Rule, DOE correctly explained that 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9) and (10) expressly authorize DOE to amend the water consumption standards initially established by those paragraphs. AWE asserted that the Fifth Circuit briefly mentioned these same provisions but ignored the actual text when it said that their “plain text” give DOE “only [the] power to amend energy-use standards for dishwashers and [RCWs].” (
Id.
)

AWE asserted that, under 42 U.S.C. 6291(6), DOE is authorized to impose requirements that do not, themselves, specify energy efficiency requirements or energy use—namely, “design requirements” for certain types of products (including dishwashers and RCW) and “any other requirements.” According to AWE, similar to the qualitative design requirement on certain boilers having constant-burning pilots and quantitative design requirement that a showerhead's flow-restricting insert resist a pulling force of 8.0 pounds, a limitation on the per-cycle water consumption of a dishwasher or RCW is qualified as a design requirement because these products' water consumption is important for regulating their energy consumption. AWE asserted that reducing the per-cycle water consumption of dishwashers and RCWs is a requirement that reduces energy consumption, not just water itself, and accordingly, DOE is justified to impose a limit on water consumption as a design requirement. AWE also stated that potable water in a residential pipe embeds the energy needed for water supply, treatment, and distribution of water; and wastewater from the appliance also requires energy for treatment. (
Id.
at p. 2)

AWE stated that DOE has authority to establish both performance standards and design requirements for a given requirement given the word “or” in the definition of “energy conservation standards at 42 U.S.C. 6291(6). According to AWE, although the Fifth Circuit has declined to read “or” as establishing mutually exclusive alternatives, this would mean only that a given standard is not categorized as either a performance standard or a design standard but not as both, and would not restrict DOE to imposing only one requirement or force DOE to choose one or the other. AWE noted that Congress added “design requirements” to the definition of “energy conservation standards” in the same statute that added dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers as covered products, which then specified design requirements for each of these products (
e.g.,
dishwashers must provide an option to dry without heat) and required DOE to determine whether those standards should be amended. According to AWE, it is highly unlikely that when Congress added “design requirement” to the definition of “energy conservation standard” while specifying updates to the standards for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers, if it meant that DOE must choose, for dishwashers, either to retain a design requirement (
i.e.,
no-heat drying option) or to have a minimum efficiency, and could not require both. (
Id.
at pp. 2-3)

AWE additionally asserted that the 2007 amendments to EPCA in the Energy Independence and Security Act expressly authorized DOE to set maximum water consumption standards for dishwashers and RCWs, contrary to the Fifth Circuit's statement that these provisions allow DOE to set only energy conservation standards. AWE asserted that Congress established in the statute an energy and water-consumption standard for each product type, and then authorized DOE to amend those standards. AWE stated that Congress intentionally referred to standards more broadly, giving DOE the power to amend both of the standards stated in 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9) and (10), consistent with the structure of EPCA overall. (
Id.
at p. 3)

AWE further asserted that DOE's general authority to revise standards for consumer products, which is specified in 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), also instructs DOE to consider, within six years after “establishing or amending a standard,” whether to amend the “standards” and not “energy conservation standard.” AWE also stated that 42 U.S.C. 6295(n) allows petitions for amendments to “standards” and not “energy conservation standards.” (
Id.
at pp. 3-4)

AWE further stated that 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), which authorizes product classes, is different than the previously mentioned provisions of EPCA in that it does not allow DOE to create product classes for standards other than energy conservation standards, or to specify class-specific parameters other than energy use or efficiency. According to AWE, if the water-consumption standards for dishwashers and RCWs were authorized solely by 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)-(10), and were not themselves energy conservation standards, DOE would not be allowed to set different water-consumption standards for the putative short-cycle classes. (
Id.
at p. 4)

DOE agrees that EPCA authorizes DOE to consider amended energy and water use standards for RCWs and dishwashers.

In conclusion, in conducting the analyses in both the November 2024 Proposed Withdrawal and this confirmation of withdrawal, DOE has considered (where appropriate) whether the relevant short-cycle features justify both different water and energy standards.

2. Test Procedure Authority

The Fifth Circuit noted that DOE tests only some of the settings on dishwashers and “laundry machines” (
i.e.,
RCWs and consumer clothes dryers) and stated that DOE concluded in the January 2022 Final Rule that “manufacturers are free to deploy
other, non-tested
settings that use as much energy and water as necessary to actually clean consumers' things,” indicating that this could create a loophole for manufacturers to deploy unregulated cycles.
Louisiana,
90 F.4th at 474.

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or water use (in the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets and urinals), or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the Secretary, and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))

DOE has established test procedures for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices C1 and C2, J and J2, and D1 and D2, respectively. For each test procedure, DOE has determined through its rulemaking process, which included ample manufacturer input, that the tested cycle(s)—
i.e.,
the normal cycle for dishwashers, RCWs, and consumer clothes dryers—produce representative measures of energy efficiency, energy use or water use, or estimated annual operating cost, as applicable for each product, without the undue burden that

would be associated with requiring every available cycle to be tested.

To ensure that the normal cycle produces measures of energy use, efficiency, and estimated annual operating cost specifically for a representative average use cycle or period of use, DOE has developed definitions and testing instructions in each test procedure to guide the appropriate selection of cycles to be tested, which corresponds to a representative average use cycle of how such appliance are used by consumers in their households.

For dishwashers, the normal cycle is “[t]he cycle type, including washing and drying temperature options, recommended in the manufacturer's instructions for daily, regular, or typical use to completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes including the power-dry feature. If no cycle or more than one cycle is recommended in the manufacturer's instructions for daily, regular, or typical use to completely wash a full load of normally soiled dishes, the most energy intensive of these cycles shall be considered the normal cycle. In the absence of a manufacturer recommendation on washing and drying temperature options, the highest energy consumption options must be selected.” Section 1 of appendices C1 and C2.

In the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE noted that it was maintaining the dishwasher test cycle selections and cycle options to test on the normal cycle. DOE additionally added a cleaning performance requirement to validate that the tested cycle was representative of an average use cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3243. Prior to publishing this final rule, in a NOPR published on December 22, 2021 (“December 2021 TP NOPR”), DOE summarized and addressed stakeholder comments regarding the representative test cycle for dishwashers. 86 FR 72738. Specifically, AHAM commented that consumers still most frequently select the normal cycle, and when consumers decide on a cycle selection, they typically use it for most of their cycles. Both GE Appliances and Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”) supported AHAM's comment that the normal cycle should remain the tested cycle. Both manufacturers submitted confidential data that supported the position that the manufacturer-designated normal cycle still represents consumer preference regarding cycle selection. These confidential data indicated, in the aggregate, that roughly 55 to 75 percent of all dishwasher cycles are conducted on the normal cycle. DOE further observed that among the other selected cycle types, some would be expected to be less energy-intensive than the normal cycle (
e.g.,
a glassware cycle type), while others would be expected to be more energy-intensive than the normal cycle (
e.g.,
a pots and pans cycle type).
Id.
at 86 FR 72757. The CA IOUs referenced PG&E's
2016 Home Energy Use Survey
to support their claim that the tested normal cycle including any powe

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2024-30797. Public record. Not legal advice.