[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18244-18259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04766]
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 18244]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058]
RIN 1904-AF59
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Clothes Dryers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including consumer
clothes dryers. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), the
U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes amended energy
conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers identical to those
set forth in a direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse comment and determines
that such comment may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
direct final rule, DOE will publish a notice of withdrawal rule and
will proceed with this proposed rule.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
NOPR no later than July 1, 2024. Comments regarding the likely
competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the
Department of Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or
before April 11, 2024.
ADDRESSES: See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for details. If
DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for
additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of
any meeting in the Federal Register.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number
EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by
docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058, by any of the following methods:
(1) Email: [email protected]. Include the
docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments
through www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Antitrust Division at
[email protected] on or before the date specified in the DATES
section. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of your email the
title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-5649. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 597-6265. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. Current Test Procedure
3. The Joint Agreement
III. Proposed Standards
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer Clothes
Dryers Standards
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include consumer clothes dryers, the
subject of this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must, among other things, be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
[[Page 18245]]
6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in
significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(i), DOE is proposing this rule establishing and amending the
energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers and is
concurrently issuing a direct final rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register. DOE will proceed with this notice of
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') only if it determines it must withdraw
the direct final rule pursuant to the criteria provided in 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4). The amended standard levels in this proposed rule and the
direct final rule were proposed in a letter submitted to DOE jointly by
groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates,
consumer groups, and a utility. This letter, titled ``Energy Efficiency
Agreement of 2023'' (hereafter, the ``Joint Agreement'',\3\) recommends
specific energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers. DOE
subsequently received letters of support for the Joint Agreement from
States including New York, California, and Massachusetts \4\ and
utilities including San Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California
Edison \5\ advocating for the adoption of the recommended standards. As
discussed in more detail in the accompanying direct final rule and in
accordance with the provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has
determined that the recommendations contained in the Joint Agreement
comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0055.
\4\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0056.
\5\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards
for consumer clothes dryers. The standards are expressed in terms of
the combined energy factor (``CEFD2''), measured in pounds
per kilowatt-hour (``lb/kWh''), as determined in accordance with DOE's
consumer clothes dryer test procedure at title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix D2
(``appendix D2''). The CEF metric includes active mode, standby mode,
and off mode energy use.
Table I.1 presents the proposed standards for consumer clothes
dryers. The proposed standards are the same as those recommended by the
Joint Agreement. These standards would apply to all products listed in
Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States
starting on March 1, 2028, as recommended in the Joint Agreement.
Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes
Dryers
[Compliance starting March 1, 2028]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum CEFD2
Product class (lb/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (``ft3'') or 3.93
greater capacity)....................................
(ii) Electric, Compact (120 volts (``V'')) (less than 4.33
4.4 ft3 capacity)....................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 3.57
ft3 capacity)........................................
(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater 3.48
capacity)............................................
(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity).. 2.02
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 2.68
ft3 capacity)........................................
(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer..... 2.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
consumer clothes dryers.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include consumer
clothes dryers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(8))
EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42
U.S.C. 6295(g)(3)), and directed DOE to conduct future rulemakings to
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)) EPCA
further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any
final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either
a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to
be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with
the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42
U.S.C. 6297(d))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making
representations to the public regarding
[[Page 18246]]
the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and
42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to
determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant
to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for consumer
clothes dryers appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix D1 and appendix D2 (``appendix
D1'' and ``appendix D2,'' respectively).
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including consumer clothes
dryers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)
Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in
the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by
rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) (B)) In deciding whether a proposed
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(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)-(VII))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4))
EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy
conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a
type (or class) of product must specify a different standard level for
a type or class of product that has the same function or intended use
if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) consume a
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products
within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
DOE 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))
Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, final rules for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, are required to address standby mode
and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for consumer clothes
dryers address standby mode and off mode energy use, as do the
standards proposed in this NOPR.
Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE
authority to directly issue a final rule (i.e., a ``direct final
rule'') establishing an energy or water conservation standard upon
receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relevant points of view (including
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and
efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary, that contains
recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the
Secretary must also determine whether a jointly-submitted
recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard satisfies
42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.
A NOPR that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must
be published simultaneously with the direct final rule, and DOE must
provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Based on the comments received during
this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE
will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if (1) one
or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those
comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the
direct final rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C))
Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner. (Id.) After
withdrawing a direct final rule, DOE must proceed with the NOPR
published simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the
Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn.
(Id.)
[[Page 18247]]
DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final
rule authority. In a final rule amending the Department's ``Procedures,
Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products'' at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A, DOE noted that it may issue standards
recommended by interested persons that are fairly representative of
relative points of view as a direct final rule when the recommended
standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But
the direct final rule provision in EPCA, under which this proposed rule
is issued, does not impose additional requirements applicable to other
standards rulemakings, which is consistent with the unique
circumstances of rules issued through consensus agreements under DOE's
direct final rule authority. Id. DOE's discretion remains bounded by
its statutory mandate to adopt a standard that results in the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified--a requirement found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Id.
As such, DOE's review and analysis of the Joint Agreement is limited to
whether the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o).
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a direct final rule published on April 21, 2011, (``April 2011
Direct Final Rule'') DOE prescribed the current energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers manufactured on and after January
1, 2015. 76 FR 22454.\6\ The current energy conservation standards, as
amended in the 2011 Direct Final Rule, are in accordance with the
appendix D1 test procedure as discussed in section II.B.2 of this
document. They are based on combined energy factor (``CEF'')--a metric
that incorporates energy use in active mode, standby mode, and off
mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ DOE published a confirmation of effective date and
compliance date for the direct final rule on August 24, 2011. 76 FR
52854.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current standards are defined in terms of a minimum allowable
CEF, as measured according to appendix D1. Even though DOE maintained
the same energy efficiency descriptor for both appendix D1 and appendix
D2, DOE notes that the CEF values are not equivalent because of the
extensive differences in test methods.\7\ To avoid potential confusion
that would result from using the same efficiency descriptor for both
test procedures as it relates to the standards discussed in this
document, DOE is including a ``D1'' or ``D2'' subscript when referring
to the appendix D1 CEF and appendix D2 CEF, respectively
(``CEFD1'' and ``CEFD2'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ While the current standards are based on CEF as determined
in accordance with appendix D1, manufacturers are permitted to use
the appendix D2 test procedure to comply with the current standards,
as long as they use a single appendix for all representations.
Beginning on the compliance date of the amended standards
established by this final rule, manufacturers will be required to
use appendix D2 to comply with the amended standards.
Table II.1 Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Clothes
Dryers as Measured Under Appendix D1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEFD1 (lb/kWh)
Product class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ or greater 3.73
capacity).............................................
(ii) Vented Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 3.61
ft\3\ capacity).......................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 3.27
ft\3\ capacity).......................................
(iv) Vented Gas........................................ 3.30
(v) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 2.55
ft\3\ capacity).......................................
(vi) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer....... 2.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Current Test Procedure
On October 8, 2021, DOE published a final rule for the test
procedure rulemaking (86 FR 56608) (the ``October 2021 TP Final
Rule''), in which it amended appendix D1 and appendix D2, both entitled
``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Clothes
Dryers,'' to provide additional detail in response to questions from
manufacturers and test laboratories, including additional detail
regarding the testing of ``connected'' models, dryness level selection,
and the procedures for maintaining the required heat input rate for gas
consumer clothes dryers; additional detail for the test procedures for
performing inactive and off mode power measurements; specifications for
the final moisture content (``FMC'') required for testing automatic
termination control dryers; specification of a narrower scale
resolution for the weighing scale used to determine moisture content of
test loads; and specification that the test load must be weighed within
5 minutes after a test cycle has terminated. In addition, as part of
the October 2021 TP Final Rule, DOE amended the test procedures to
update the estimated number of annual use cycles for consumer clothes
dryers; provide further direction for additional provisions within the
test procedures; specify rounding requirements for all reported values;
apply consistent use of nomenclature and correct typographical errors;
remove obsolete sections of the test procedures, including appendix D;
and update the reference to the applicable industry test procedure to
the version certified by the American National Standards Institute
(``ANSI''). 86 FR 56608, 56610.
DOE's current energy conservation standards for consumer clothes
dryers are expressed in terms of CEFD1. (See 10 CFR
430.32(h)(3).) Appendix D1 tests timed drying cycles, and accounts for
clothes dryers with automatic termination controls by applying a higher
field use factor to units that have this feature. Appendix D2 tests
``normal'' automatic termination cycles and more accurately measure the
effects of automatic cycle termination.
EPCA authorizes DOE to design test procedures that measure energy
efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated annual operating cost
of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or
period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The appendix D2 test procedure,
which is required for use to demonstrate compliance with the amended
energy conservation standards established in this direct final rule,
measures the energy consumption of a representative use cycle that
dries a load of laundry from an initial moisture content of 57.5
percent to an FMC of less than 2 percent. 86 FR 56624-56625. For timer
clothes dryers, the test load is
[[Page 18248]]
dried until the FMC is between 1 and 2.5 percent of the bone-dry weight
of the test load. The measured energy consumption is then normalized to
determine the energy consumption required to dry the test load to 2-
percent FMC, with a field use factor applied to account for the over-
drying energy consumption. For automatic termination control clothes
dryers, appendix D2 specifies that a ``normal'' program be selected for
the test cycle, and for clothes dryers that do not have a ``normal''
program, the cycle recommended by the manufacturer for drying cotton or
linen shall be selected. If the drying temperature and drying level
settings can be chosen independently of the program, they shall be set
at the maximum drying temperature setting, and at a ``normal'' or
``medium'' dryness level setting. The test is considered valid if the
FMC of the test load is 2 percent or less after the completion of the
test cycle. If the FMC is greater than 2 percent, the test is
considered invalid and a new run shall be conducted using the highest
dryness level setting.
The current 2-percent FMC requirement using the DOE test cloth was
adopted as representative of approximately 5-percent FMC for ``real-
world'' clothing, based on data submitted in a joint petition for
rulemaking.\8\ DOE determined in the final rule published on August 14,
2013, that established the appendix D2 test procedure that the
specified 2-percent FMC using the DOE test load was representative of
consumer expectations for dryness of clothing in field use. 78 FR
49608, 49620-49622, 49610-49611. DOE did not amend the FMC requirements
in the October 2021 TP Final Rule. 86 FR 56626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The petition was submitted by AHAM, Whirlpool Corporation,
General Electric Company, Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc., BSH,
Alliance Laundry Systems, Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/
C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA
Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik,
Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and
DeLonghi, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Alliance to Save Energy, Alliance for Water Efficiency,
Northwest Power and Conservation Council, and Northeast Energy
Efficiency Partnerships, Consumer Federation of America and the
National Consumer Law Center. See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP- 0054,
No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has conducted the rulemaking analysis for this proposed rule
based on CEFD2 because compliance with the amended energy
conservation standards established in the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register must be determined
based on the use of appendix D2. DOE discusses additional details in
section IV.C.1 of the accompanying direct final rule about how it
developed the engineering baseline, in terms of CEFD2, from
the current consumer clothes dryer standards that are in terms of
CEFD1.
3. The Joint Agreement
On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (i.e., the
Joint Agreement) recommending standards for consumer clothes dryers,
that was submitted by groups representing manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.\9\ In addition
to the recommended standards for consumer clothes dryers, the Joint
Agreement also included separate recommendations for several other
covered products.\10\ And, while acknowledging that DOE may implement
these recommendations in separate rulemakings, the Joint Agreement also
stated that the recommendations were recommended as a complete package
and each recommendation is contingent upon the other parts being
implemented. DOE understands this to mean that the Joint Agreement is
contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes to adopt all of the
recommended standards in the agreement. That is distinguished from an
agreement where issuance of an amended energy conservation standard for
a covered product is contingent on issuance of amended energy
conservation standards for the other covered products. If the Joint
Agreement were so construed, it would conflict with the anti-
backsliding provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), because it would imply
the possibility that, if DOE were unable to issue an amended standard
for a certain product, it would have to withdraw a previously issued
standard for one of the other products. The anti-backsliding provision,
however, prevents DOE from withdrawing or amending an energy
conservation standard to be less stringent. As a result, DOE will be
proceeding with individual rulemakings that will evaluate each of the
recommended standards separately under the applicable statutory
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include AHAM,
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water
Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer
Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that make the affected
products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB;
Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances
Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.;
Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances;
L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr USA, Co.;
Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration
Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of America; Perlick Corporation;
Samsung Electronics America Inc.; Sharp Electronics Corporation;
Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby Corporation; U-Line
Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool Corporation.
\10\ The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for six
covered products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers; residential clothes washers; consumer clothes dryers;
dishwashers; consumer conventional cooking products; and
miscellaneous refrigeration products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A court decision issued after DOE received the Joint Agreement is
also relevant to today's rule. On March 17, 2022, various States filed
a petition seeking review of a final rule revoking two final rules that
established product classes for residential dishwashers with a cycle
time for the normal cycle of 60 minutes or less, top-loading
residential clothes washers (``RCWs'') and certain classes of consumer
clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, and front-
loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes (collectively,
``short cycle product classes''). The petitioners argued that the final
rule revoking the short cycle product classes violated EPCA and was
arbitrary and capricious. On January 8, 2024, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review and
remanded the matter to DOE for further proceedings consistent with the
Fifth Circuit's opinion. See Louisiana v. United States Department of
Energy, 90 F.4th 461 (5th Cir. 2024).
On February 14, 2024, following the Fifth Circuit's decision in
Louisiana v. United States Department of Energy, DOE received a second
joint statement from this same group of stakeholders in which the
signatories reaffirmed the Joint Agreement, stating that the
recommended standards represent the maximum levels of efficiency that
are technologically feasible and economically justified.\11\ In the
letter, the signatories clarified that ``short-cycle'' product classes
for RCWs, consumer clothes dryers, and dishwashers did not exist at the
time that the signatories submitted their recommendations and it is
their understanding that these classes also do not exist at the current
time. Accordingly, the parties clarified that the Joint Agreement did
not address short-cycle product classes. The signatories also stated
that they did not anticipate that the recommended energy conservation
standards in the Joint Agreement will negatively affect
[[Page 18249]]
features or performance, including cycle time, for consumer clothes
dryers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a recently issued request for information (``RFI''),\12\ DOE is
commencing a rulemaking process on remand from the Fifth Circuit (the
``Remand Proceeding'') by soliciting further information, relevant to
the issues identified by the Fifth Circuit, regarding any short cycle
product classes. In that Remand Proceeding, DOE will conduct the
analysis required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B) to determine whether any
short-cycle products have a ``capacity or other performance-related
feature [that] . . . justifies a higher or lower standard from that
which applies (or will apply) to other products. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Appliance Standards Rulemakings and Notices
(energy.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Agreement recommends amended standard levels for consumer
clothes dryers as presented in Table II.2. (Joint Agreement, No. 55 at
p. 9) Details of the Joint Agreement recommendations for other products
are provided in the Joint Agreement posted in the docket.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Joint Agreement available in the docket at
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014--BT-STD-0058-0055.
Table II.2--Recommended Amended Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum energy
Product class efficiency ratio Compliance date
(lb/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, Standard (4.4 3.93 March 1, 2028.
cubic feet (``ft\3\'') or
greater capacity).
Electric, Compact (120 volts 4.33
(``V'')) (less than 4.4
ft\3\ capacity).
Vented Electric, Compact 3.57
(240V) (less than 4.4 ft\3\
capacity).
Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 3.48
ft\3\ or greater capacity).
Vented Gas, Compact (less 2.02
than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
Ventless Electric, Compact 2.68
(240V) (less than 4.4 ft\3\
capacity).
Ventless Electric, 2.33
Combination Washer-Dryer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has evaluated the Joint Agreement and believes that it meets
the EPCA requirements for issuance of a direct final rule. As a result,
DOE published a direct final rule establishing energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse comments that may provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal and withdraws the direct final rule,
DOE will consider those comments and any other comments received in
determining how to proceed with this proposed rule. For further
background information on these proposed standards and the supporting
analyses, please see the direct final rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register. That document and the accompanying
technical support document (``TSD'') contain an in-depth discussion of
the analyses conducted in evaluating the Joint Agreement, the
methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses, and the analytical
results.
When the Joint Agreement was submitted, DOE was conducting a
rulemaking to consider amending the standards for consumer clothes
dryers. As part of that process, DOE published a NOPR and announced a
public webinar to respond to initial comments on August 23, 2022
(``August 2022 NOPR'') seeking comment on its proposed amended
standards to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under
EPCA and the Administrative Procedures Act (``APA''). 87 FR 51734. DOE
subsequently held a public webinar on September 13, 2022, to discuss
and receive comments on the August 2022 NOPR TSD. The August 2022 NOPR
TSD is available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0034.
III. Proposed Standards
When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by,
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for consumer
clothes dryers at each trial standard level (``TSL''), beginning with
the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') level, to determine
whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level
was not justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level
and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest
efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically
justified and saves a significant amount of energy. DOE refers to this
process as the ``walk-down'' analysis.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on
employment.
DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of
information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or
aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant
delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term,
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings
relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant
tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example,
[[Page 18250]]
between renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less
than perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the
future, consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher
than expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future
energy cost savings.
In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to
lost revenue is included in the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'').
Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products
actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a standard
decreases the number of products purchased by consumers, this decreases
the potential energy savings from an energy conservation standard. DOE
provides estimates of shipments and changes in the volume of product
purchases in chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD \14\ available in
the docket for this rulemaking. However, DOE's current analysis does
not explicitly control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences,
preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, or
consumer price sensitivity variation according to household income.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058/document.
\15\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand,
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883.
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer Clothes Dryers
Standards
Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize the quantitative impacts
estimated for each TSL for consumer clothes dryers. The national
impacts are measured over the lifetime of consumer clothes dryers
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of
compliance with amended standards (2027-2056).\16\ The energy savings,
emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer to full-
fuel-cycle (``FFC'') results. The efficiency levels contained in each
TSL are described in section V.A of the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. DOE is presenting
monetized benefits of greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions reductions in
accordance with the applicable Executive Orders and DOE would reach the
same conclusion presented in this notice in the absence of the social
cost of greenhouse gases, including the Interim Estimates presented by
the Interagency Working Group. The efficiency levels contained in each
TSL are described in section V.A of the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is
2028-2057.
Table III.1--Summary of Analytical Results for Consumer Clothes Dryer TSLs: National Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads................................................... 0.57 1.58 2.66 3.52 9.70 9.76
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)............................... 12.4 34.1 57.1 73.5 188.6 189.6
CH4 (thousand tons)..................................... 114.8 311.4 527.6 661.6 1,646 1,654
N2O (thousand tons)..................................... 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.6 1.7 1.7
NOX (thousand tons)..................................... 25.4 69.0 116.5 146.7 364.1 366.0
SO2 (thousand tons)..................................... 3.0 8.4 13.9 19.0 53.3 53.6
Hg (tons)............................................... 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................... 4.3 12.7 21.1 28.8 77.4 77.8
Climate Benefits *...................................... 0.7 2.0 3.3 4.3 10.8 10.9
Health Benefits **...................................... 1.4 3.8 6.3 8.2 20.8 20.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]............................. 6.4 18.5 30.7 41.3 108.9 109.5
Consumer Incremental Product Costs[Dagger].............. 0.2 0.4 1.0 8.9 46.2 47.3
Consumer Net Benefits................................... 4.1 12.3 20.1 19.9 31.2 30.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Net Benefits.................................. 6.2 18.2 29.7 32.4 62.8 62.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................... 2.0 6.1 9.8 13.7 35.2 35.4
Climate Benefits *...................................... 0.7 2.0 3.3 4.3 10.8 10.9
Health Benefits **...................................... 0.6 1.7 2.6 3.6 8.7 8.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits[dagger].............................. 3.4 9.8 15.8 21.6 54.7 55.0
Consumer Incremental Product Costs[Dagger].............. 0.1 0.2 0.6 5.3 26.2 26.8
Consumer Net Benefits................................... 1.9 5.9 9.2 8.4 9.0 8.6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18251]]
Total Net Benefits.................................. 3.3 9.6 15.2 16.3 28.5 28.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer clothes dryers shipped during the period 2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 3
(the Recommended TSL) and 2028-2057 for TSL 3. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2056 from the products
shipped during the period 2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 3 and 2057 from the products shipped during the period 2028-2057 for TSL 3.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-
CH4), and nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate).
Together, these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-
percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG
estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working
Group (``IWG'') on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. See www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocumentSocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor
health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health
benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. For more details, see
section IV.L of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent
and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
Table III.2--Summary of Analytical Results for Consumer Clothes Dryer TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 * TSL 2 * TSL 3 * TSL 4 * TSL 5 * TSL 6 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No- 2,080.3 to 2,084.3....... 2,061.1 to 2,069.5....... 1,971.2 to 1,995.8....... 1,501.9 to 1,724.8....... 679.9 to 1,800.8....... 604.3 to 1,753.5.
new-standards case INPV =
2,115.4).
Industry NPV (% change)........... (1.7) to (1.5)........... (2.6) to (2.2)........... (6.8) to (5.7)........... (29.0) to (18.5)......... (67.9) to (14.9)....... (71.4) to (17.1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, Standard................ $150..................... $170..................... $252..................... $101..................... $41.................... $41
Electric, Compact (120 V)......... $53...................... $83...................... $66...................... $66...................... $66.................... ($209)
Vented Electric, Compact (240 V).. $38...................... $89...................... $90...................... $90...................... $22.................... ($230)
Vented Gas, Standard.............. $48...................... $112..................... $102..................... $102..................... $13.................... $13
Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V) $0....................... $99...................... $99...................... $99...................... $99.................... ($102)
Ventless Electric, Combination $0....................... $10...................... $11...................... $10...................... $10.................... ($531)
Washer-Dryer.
Shipment-Weighted Average \*\..... $131..................... $159..................... $224..................... $100..................... $36.................... $29
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Simple PBP (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, Standard................ 0.5...................... 0.5...................... 0.6...................... 2.1...................... 5.8.................... 5.8
Electric, Compact (120 V)......... 1.5...................... 1.5...................... 2.2...................... 2.2...................... 2.2.................... 18.1
Vented Electric, Compact (240 V).. 2.1...................... 1.5...................... 2.0...................... 2.0...................... 6.6.................... 20.4
Vented Gas, Standard.............. 2.5...................... 1.3...................... 1.9...................... 1.9...................... 5.0.................... 5.0
Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V) 0.0...................... 0.4...................... 0.4...................... 0.4...................... 0.4.................... 11.4
Ventless Electric, Combination 0.0...................... 0.0...................... 0.0...................... 0.0...................... 0.0.................... 46.3
Washer-Dryer.
Shipment-Weighted Average \*\..... 0.9...................... 0.6...................... 0.8...................... 2.1...................... 5.6.................... 6.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, Standard................ 1.2%..................... 0.9%..................... 0.9%..................... 48.0%.................... 63.1%.................. 63.1%
Electric, Compact (120 V)......... 4.8%..................... 5.1%..................... 21.4%.................... 21.7%.................... 21.7%.................. 90.9%
Vented Electric, Compact (240 V).. 5.7%..................... 4.6%..................... 12.4%.................... 12.6%.................... 60.7%.................. 92.8%
Vented Gas, Standard.............. 2.7%..................... 1.7%..................... 7.1%..................... 7.0%..................... 68.7%.................. 68.7%
Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V) 0.0%..................... 0.0%..................... 0.0%..................... 0.0%..................... 0.0%................... 58.6%
Ventless Electric, Combination 0.0%..................... 0.0%..................... 0.0%..................... 0.0%..................... 0.0%................... 95.0%
Washer-Dryer.
Shipment-Weighted Average \*\..... 1.5%..................... 1.0%..................... 2.0%..................... 40.4%.................... 63.3%.................. 64.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027 for all TSLs except TSL 3 and in 2028 for TSL 3.
DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech
efficiency level and includes the design parameters of the most
efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes for
all product classes. The max-tech design options include heat pump
technology for electric consumer clothes dryers and inlet air preheat
technology for gas consumer clothes dryers. DOE's shipments analysis
estimates approximately 1 percent of annual consumer clothes dryer
shipments currently meet this level. TSL 6 would save an estimated 9.76
quadrillion British thermal units (``quads'') of energy, an amount DOE
considers significant. Under TSL 6, the net present value (``NPV'') of
consumer benefit would be $8.6 billion using a discount
[[Page 18252]]
rate of 7 percent, and $30.5 billion using a discount rate of 3
percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 would be 189.6 million
tons (``Mt'') of CO2, 53.6 thousand tons of SO2,
366.0 thousand tons of NOX, 0.4 ton of Hg, 1,654 thousand
tons of CH4, and 1.7 thousand tons of N2O. The
estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG
emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount
rate) at TSL 6 would be $10.9 billion. The estimated monetary value of
the health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions at TSL 6 would be $8.7 billion using a 7-percent discount
rate and $20.9 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 6 would be
$28.2 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and
costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 6 would be $62.2 billion. The
estimated total NPV is provided for additional information; however,
DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining
whether a standard level is economically justified.
At TSL 6, the average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') impact on affected
consumers would be a savings of $41 for electric standard, -$209 for
electric compact (120V), -$230 for vented electric compact (240V), $13
for vented gas standard, -$102 for ventless electric compact (240V),
and -$531 for ventless electric combination washer-dryer. The simple
payback period (``PBP'') would be 6 years for electric standard, 18
years for electric compact (120V), 20 years for vented electric compact
(240V), 5 years for vented gas standard, 11 years for ventless electric
compact (240V), and 46 years for ventless electric combination washer-
dryer. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be
63 percent for electric standard, 91 percent for electric compact
(120V), 93 percent for vented electric compact (240V), 69 percent for
vented gas standard, 59 percent for ventless electric compact (240V),
and 95 percent for ventless electric combination washer-dryer. Overall,
across the product classes, the majority of consumers would experience
a net LCC cost, especially for senior households. DOE estimated that
more 72 percent of senior-only households would experience a net LCC
cost at TSL 6.
At TSL 6, the projected change in industry net present value
(``INPV'') ranges from a decrease of $1,511.1 million to a decrease of
$361.9 million, corresponding to decreases of 71.4 percent and 17.1
percent, respectively. The loss in INPV is largely driven by industry
conversion costs as manufacturers work to redesign their portfolios of
model offerings and retool entire factories to comply with amended
standards at this level. Industry conversion costs could reach $1,516.9
million at this TSL.
Conversion costs at TSL 6 are significant as nearly all existing
consumer clothes dryer models would need to be redesigned to meet the
max-tech efficiencies. Approximately 1 percent of industry shipments
currently meet TSL 6. For the electric clothes dryer product classes,
manufacturers would need to implement heat pump technology to meet max-
tech levels. Out of the 19 original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'')
that manufacture electric consumer clothes dryers, nine OEMs offer heat
pump models for the U.S. market. The remaining 10 OEMs do not offer any
models for the domestic market that utilize heat pump technology. A
standard that could only be met using heat pump technology would
require a total renovation of existing production facilities and would
require most manufacturers to design completely new clothes dryer
platforms, as they would not be able to maintain the resistive heating
designs that currently dominate the U.S. electric clothes dryer market.
In interviews, several manufacturers expressed concern about a
potential shortage of products given the required scale of investment,
redesign efforts, and 3-year compliance timeline.
For gas consumer clothes dryers, manufacturers would need to
implement inlet air preheat technology along with other design options
to meet the efficiency levels required by TSL 6. Thus far, consumer
clothes dryers with this technology and performance have not been
observed in consumer clothes dryers available on the consumer market.
Consumer clothes dryers with inlet air preheat designs have been
observed only in laboratory settings. In interviews, some manufacturers
raised concerns about implementing a relatively untested technology for
the consumer market. There is very little industry experience with
inlet air preheat designs. Several manufacturers speculated that
implementing inlet air preheat technology would require a major
overhaul of existing production facilities and a significant amount of
engineering time.
At this level, DOE estimates an 11-percent drop in shipments in the
year the standard would take effect compared to the no-new-standards
case, as price-sensitive consumers may forgo purchasing a new clothes
dryer or rely on alternatives such as repair or purchasing a used dryer
due to the increased upfront cost of baseline models.
The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 6 for consumer
clothes dryers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of
consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary
value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic
burden on many consumers, especially senior-only households, as well as
the impacts on manufacturers, including the potential for large
conversion costs and reduction in INPV.
TSL 6, representing the most efficient heat pump technology on the
market, would provide significant energy savings potential, as
discussed. Despite the current and potential future benefits of heat
pump technology, the analysis at TSL 6 indicates that a significant
fraction of consumers of electric and vented gas standard clothes
dryers, including low-income and senior-only households, would
experience a net cost given the current relatively high incremental
cost of electric and vented gas standard clothes dryers at the max-tech
efficiency level. This is particularly pronounced for electric standard
clothes dryers, where the incremental production cost at the max-tech
efficiency level is comparable to the manufacturer production cost for
the baseline efficiency level. Consumers with existing electric
standard clothes dryers below EL 4 (about 55 percent) and consumers
with existing vented gas standard clothes dryers below EL 3 (about 50
percent) would be more likely to experience a net cost at TSL 6, given
the relatively modest decrease in operating costs compared to the high
incremental installed costs. Few products currently meet the efficiency
levels required by TSL 6. DOE estimates that approximately 1 percent of
current shipments meet the max-tech efficiencies. At max-tech, limited
industry experience by certain manufacturers with the high-efficiency
design options, the large conversion costs to update facilities and
product designs, and expected drop in industry shipments would result
in a reduction of INPV and a potential shortage of products given the
required scale of investment, redesign efforts, and time constraints.
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 6 is not
economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 5, which represents the maximum energy
savings with positive NPV. TSL 5 corresponds
[[Page 18253]]
to the max-tech level (EL 7), which represents heat pump technology,
for the electric standard product class, and the efficiency levels
corresponding to modulating (2-stage) heating technology in the
electric compact (120V) and inlet air preheat technology in the vented
electric compact (240V) product classes considered in this analysis.
For the vented gas standard product class, TSL 5 corresponds to the
max-tech level (EL 4), which represents inlet air preheat technology.
TSL 5 would save an estimated 9.70 quads of energy, an amount DOE
considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would
be $9.0 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $31.2 billion
using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 would be 188.6 Mt of
CO2, 53.3 thousand tons of SO2, 364.1 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.4 ton of Hg, 1,646 thousand tons of
CH4, and 1.7 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 5 would be $10.8 billion. The estimated monetary value of the
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions at TSL 5 would be $ 8.7 billion using a 7-percent discount
rate and $20.8 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 5 would be
$28.5 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and
costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 5 would be $62.8 billion. The
estimated total NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE
primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining
whether a standard level is economically justified.
At TSL 5, the average LCC impact on affected consumers would be a
savings of $41 for electric standard, $66 for electric compact (120V),
$22 for vented electric compact (240V), $13 for vented gas standard,
$99 for ventless electric compact (240V), and $10 for ventless electric
combination washer-dryer. The simple PBP would be 6 years for electric
standard, 2 years for electric compact (120V), 7 years for vented
electric compact (240V), 5 years for vented gas standard, 0.4 years for
ventless electric compact (240V), and zero years for ventless electric
combination washer-dryer. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net
LCC cost would be 63 percent for electric standard, 22 percent for
electric compact (120V), 61 percent for vented electric compact (240V),
69 percent for vented gas standard, and zero percent for ventless
electric compact (240V) and ventless electric combination washer-dryer.
Overall, across the product classes, approximately 63 percent of
consumers would experience a net LCC cost, especially for senior-only
households. DOE estimated that more than 71 percent of senior-only
households would experience a net LCC cost at TSL 5.
At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$1,435.5 million to a decrease of $314.6 million, corresponding to
decreases of 67.9 percent and 14.9 percent, respectively. Industry
conversion costs could reach $1,436.9 million at this TSL.
DOE's shipments analysis estimates approximately 2 percent of
annual shipments currently meet this level. At TSL 5, the efficiency
levels and analyzed design options for electric standard and vented gas
standard dryers (which together account for approximately 98 percent of
industry shipments) are the same as at max-tech. Thus, requiring heat
pump technology for electric standard dryers and inlet air preheat for
vented gas standard dryers would result in similar conversion costs,
reduction in INPV, and drop in shipments as TSL 6.
At this level, DOE estimates an 11-percent drop in shipments in the
year the standard would take effect compared to the no-new-standards
case, as price-sensitive consumers may forgo purchasing a new clothes
dryer or rely on alternatives such as repair or purchasing a used dryer
due to the increased upfront cost of baseline models.
The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 for consumer
clothes dryers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of
consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary
value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic
burden on many consumers, especially senior-only households, as well as
the impacts on manufacturers, including the significant conversion
costs and large potential reduction in INPV. A significant fraction of
electric standard clothes dryer consumers, including low-income and
senior-only households, would experience a net cost. This is due to the
high incremental cost of electric standard clothes dryers at the max-
tech efficiency level. Consumers with existing electric standard
clothes dryers below EL 4 would be more likely to experience a net cost
at TSL 5, given the relatively modest decrease in operating costs
compared to the high incremental installed costs. DOE estimates that
approximately 2 percent of shipments currently meet the efficiencies
required by this TSL. At TSL 5, the limited industry experience by
certain manufacturers with the high-efficiency design options, the
large conversion costs to update facilities and product designs, and
expected drop in industry shipments would result in a reduction of INPV
and a potential shortage of products given the required scale of
investment, redesign efforts, and time constraints. Consequently, the
Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 5 is not economically
justified.
DOE then considered TSL 4, which represents the maximum national
energy savings with simple PBP less than 4 years for each product
class. TSL 4 corresponds to the EL that represents inlet air preheat
technology for the electric standard product class considered in this
analysis. For the electric compact (120V) and vented electric compact
(240V) product classes, TSL 4 corresponds to EL 4, which represents
modulating (2-stage) heating technology. For the vented gas standard
product class, TSL 4 corresponds to EL 3, which also represents
modulating (2-stage) heating technology. TSL 4 would save an estimated
3.52 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4,
the NPV of consumer benefit would be $8.4 billion using a discount rate
of 7 percent, and $19.9 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 would be 73.5 Mt of
CO2, 19.0 thousand tons of SO2, 146.7 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.1 ton of Hg, 661.6 thousand tons of
CH4, and 0.6 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 4 would be $4.3 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 4 would be $3.6 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $8.2
million using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 would be
$16.3 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and
costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 would be $32.4 billion. The
estimated total NPV is
[[Page 18254]]
provided for additional information; however, DOE primarily relies upon
the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a standard level
is economically justified.
At TSL 4, the average LCC impact on affected consumers would be a
savings of $101 for electric standard, $66 for electric compact (120V),
$90 for vented electric compact (240V), $102 for vented gas standard,
$99 for ventless electric compact, and $10 for ventless electric
combination washer-dryer. The simple PBP would be 2 years for electric
standard, 2 years for electric compact (120V), 2 years for vented
electric compact (240V), 2 years for vented gas standard, 0.4 years for
ventless electric compact (240V), and zero years for ventless electric
combination washer-dryer. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net
LCC cost would be 48 percent for electric standard, 22 percent for
electric compact (120V), 13 percent for vented electric compact (240V),
7 percent for vented gas standard, and zero percent for ventless
electric compact (240V) and ventless electric combination washer-dryer.
Overall, across the product classes, approximately 40 percent of
consumers would experience a net LCC cost, especially for senior
households. DOE estimated that about 45 percent of senior-only
households would experience a net LCC cost at TSL 4.
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$613.5 million to a decrease of $390.6 million, corresponding to
decreases of 29.0 percent and 18.5 percent, respectively. Industry
conversion costs could reach $667.5 million at this TSL.
At TSL 4, the majority of consumer clothes dryer models would need
to be redesigned to meet the efficiency levels required. DOE's
shipments analysis estimates approximately 15 percent of current
shipments meet this level. For electric standard dryers, the design
options include implementing inlet air preheat and other features. As
previously noted, electric standard dryers account for approximately 81
percent of total shipments. At the current time, there is very little
industry experience with inlet air preheat designs. Currently, DOE is
not aware of any consumer clothes dryers on the market utilizing this
design option. DOE's shipments analysis estimates that approximately 7
percent of electric standard shipments currently meet the efficiency
required by TSL 4. Implementing inlet air preheat for electric standard
dryers would represent a major overhaul of existing product lines and
manufacturing facilities. This change would necessitate significant
investments in new equipment and tooling. Product conversion costs
would be necessary for designing, prototyping, and testing new or
updated platforms.
For vented gas standard clothes dryers, the analyzed design option
at TSL 4 includes modulating (2-stage) heat technology, among other
design options. Out of the nine OEMs that manufacture vented gas
standard clothes dryers, eight offer products that meet the
efficiencies required at TSL 4. DOE does not believe that there are any
substantive barriers to modulating (2-stage) heating technology.
Capital conversion costs would be necessary as manufacturers increase
tooling for 2-stage heating systems. Product conversion costs would be
necessary for cost-optimizing and testing new designs for a market with
potential amended standards.
At this level, DOE does not expect a notable drop in shipments in
the year the standard takes effect.
The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for consumer
clothes dryers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of
consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary
value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic
burden on many consumers, especially senior-only households, as well as
the impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion costs and profit
margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV. A
significant fraction of electric standard clothes dryer consumers,
including senior-only households, would experience a net cost. This is
due to the high incremental cost of electric standard clothes dryers at
the inlet air preheat technology efficiency level. Consumers with
existing electric standard clothes dryers below EL 4 would be more
likely to experience a net cost at TSL 4, given the relatively modest
decrease in operating costs compared to the high incremental installed
costs. For electric standard dryers, DOE estimates that approximately 7
percent of shipments currently meet the efficiency level required by
this TSL. At TSL 4, the limited industry experience of electric
standard dryer manufacturers with inlet air preheat technology and the
large conversion costs to update facilities and product designs, would
result in a large reduction of INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has
tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 3, which corresponds to the TSL recommended
in the Joint Agreement (the ``Recommended TSL'') and, which also
represents a set of intermediate efficiency levels between those
designated in TSL 2 and TSL 4 and corresponds to the current ENERGY
STAR efficiency levels for the electric standard and vented gas
standard product classes, which represent approximately 98 percent of
the market. The Recommended TSL corresponds to the EL that represents
modulating (2-stage) heating technology for the electric standard and
electric compact (120V) product classes. For the vented gas standard
product class, the Recommended TSL corresponds to EL 3, which also
represents modulating (2-stage) heating technology. For the vented gas
compact product class, the Recommended TSL corresponds to baseline
CEFD2. For the electric compact (240V) product classes, the
Recommended TSL corresponds to EL 2 for vented consumer clothes dryers,
which represents a model with an optimized heating system and EL 1 for
ventless consumer clothes dryers, which represents a baseline model
with a more advanced automatic termination control system. For the
ventless electric combination washer-dryer product class, the
Recommended TSL corresponds to EL 1, which represents a baseline model
with high-speed spin technology. The Recommended TSL would save an
estimated 2.66 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant.
Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $9.23
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $20.08 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at the Recommended TSL would be
57.1 Mt of CO2, 13.9 thousand tons of SO2, 116.5
thousand tons of NOX, 0.1 ton of Hg, 527.6 thousand tons of
CH4, and 0.5 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 3 would be $3.3 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 3 would be $2.6 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $6.3
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended
TSL would be $15.2 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended TSL
would be $29.7 billion. The estimated total NPV is provided for
additional information;
[[Page 18255]]
however, DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when
determining whether a standard level is economically justified.
At the Recommended TSL, the average LCC impact on affected
consumers would be a savings of $252 for electric standard, $66 for
electric compact (120V), $90 for vented electric compact (240V), $102
for vented gas standard, $99 for ventless electric compact, and $11 for
ventless electric combination washer-dryer. The simple PBP would be 1
year for the largest product class (electric standard), 2 years for
electric compact (120V), 2 years for vented electric compact (240V), 2
years for vented gas standard, 0.4 years for ventless electric compact
(240V), and zero years for ventless electric combination washer-dryer.
The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 1
percent for electric standard, 21 percent for electric compact (120V),
12 percent for vented electric compact (240V), 7 percent for vented gas
standard, and zero percent for ventless electric compact (240V) and
ventless electric combination washer-dryer. Overall, across the product
classes, approximately 2 percent of consumers, including low-income and
senior-only households, would experience a net LCC cost.
At the Recommended TSL, the projected change in INPV ranges from a
decrease of $144.2 million to a decrease of $119.7 million,
corresponding to decreases of 6.8 percent and 5.7 percent,
respectively. Industry conversion costs could reach $180.7 million at
this TSL.
DOE expects that some existing consumer clothes dryer models would
need to be redesigned to meet the Recommended TSL efficiencies, but
there are a wide range of available models for vented electric standard
dryers due to participation in the ENERGY STAR program. DOE's shipments
analysis estimates approximately 48 percent of annual shipments
currently meet this level. For electric standard, electric compact
(120V), vented electric compact (240V), and vented gas standard clothes
dryers, which account for approximately 99 percent of total annual
shipments, the design options include implementing electronic controls,
optimized heating systems, more advanced automatic termination
controls, and modulating (2-stage) heat. Of the 19 electric dryer OEMs,
14 offer products at or above the efficiencies required for the
electric dryer product classes at the Recommended TSL. Out of the nine
OEMs that manufacture vented gas standard clothes dryers, eight offer
products that meet the efficiencies required at the Recommended TSL.
Capital conversion costs may be necessary as manufacturers increase
tooling for 2-stage heating systems. Manufacturers may choose to
further cost-optimize and test new designs as a result of the
standards, but DOE believes some of this has already occurred in
response to ENERGY STAR. DOE does not expect any drop in shipments in
the year the standard takes effect.
For all TSLs considered in this NOPR--except for the Recommended
TSL--DOE is bound by the 3-year lead time requirements in EPCA when
determining compliance dates (i.e., compliance with amended standards
required in 2027). For the Recommended TSL, DOE's analysis utilized the
March 1, 2028, compliance date specified in the Joint Agreement as it
was an integral part of the multi-product joint recommendation. A 2028
compliance year would provide manufacturers additional flexibility to
spread capital requirements, engineering resources, and conversion
activities over a longer period of time depending on the individual
needs of each manufacturer.
At the Recommended TSL, DOE's data demonstrate no negative impact
on consumer utility for consumer clothes dryers. In addition, the
second joint statement from the same group of stakeholders that
submitted the Joint Agreement states that DOE's test data show, and
industry experience agrees, that the recommended standard level for
consumer clothes dryers will not result in significant differences in
cycle time and will adequately dry clothes.\17\ Based on the
information available, DOE concludes that no lessening of product
utility or performance would occur at the Recommended TSL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that a standard set at
the Recommended TSL for consumer clothes dryers would result in the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified and also result in the significant
conservation of energy. At this TSL, the average LCC savings for all
consumer clothes dryer product classes would be positive. An estimated
weighted average of 2 percent of consumer clothes dryer consumers would
experience a net cost. The FFC national energy savings would be
significant and the NPV of consumer benefits would be positive using
both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the benefits to
consumers would vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers. At the
Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the
more conservative discount rate of 7 percent, would be over 64 times
higher than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The
positive LCC savings--a different way of quantifying consumer
benefits--reinforces this conclusion. The standard levels at the
Recommended TSL are economically justified even without weighing the
estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions
reductions are included--representing $3.3 billion in climate benefits
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and
$6.3 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $2.6 billion (using a
7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--the rationale becomes
stronger still.
As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under
EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative
analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of
energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically
justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 70892, 70908.
Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select the
proposed amended energy conservation standards, DOE notes that as
compared to TSL 6, TSL 5, and TSL 4, the Recommended TSL would have
higher average LCC savings, smaller percentages of consumers
experiencing a net cost, a lower maximum decrease in INPV, and lower
manufacturer conversion costs.
Although DOE considered amended standard levels for consumer
clothes dryers by grouping the efficiency levels for each product class
into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its
analysis. Accordingly, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that the
Recommended TSL would offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that
is technologically feasible and economically justified and would result
in the significant conservation of energy. For electric standard and
vented gas standard consumer clothes dryers, which account for
approximately 98 percent of U.S. shipments, requiring efficiency levels
above the levels required by the Recommended TSL would result in a
large percentage of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost, in addition
to significant manufacturer
[[Page 18256]]
impacts and reductions in INPV. Additionally, for consumer clothes
dryers, most manufacturers offer products that can meet the Recommended
TSL across both electric and gas consumer clothes dryers. In addition,
the Recommended TSL corresponds to the current ENERGY STAR levels for
electric standard and vented gas standard clothes dryers, which have
significant market share and manufacturer support due to their
promotion over the past couple of years as a voluntary energy
efficiency program. The adoption of standards, if finalized, at this
TSL may encourage ENERGY STAR to further consider more efficient levels
for dryers in the year leadings up to the compliance of date of the
standard, which would in turn likely spur additional market
introductions of consumer clothes dryers with heat pump technology,
foster maturation of the technology and downward price trends, and
further support differentiation within the dryer market for energy
efficient products. For electric and vented gas standard consumer
clothes dryers, the Recommended TSL is comprised of EL 4 and EL 3,
respectively, resulting in higher LCC savings, a significant reduction
in the number of consumers experiencing a net cost, a lower maximum
decrease in INPV, and lower conversion costs to the point where DOE has
tentatively concluded they are economically justified, as discussed for
the Recommended TSL in the preceding paragraphs.
Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes the
energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers at the
Recommended TSL.
While DOE considered each potential TSL under the criteria laid out
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the
Recommended TSL for consumer clothes dryers proposed in this NOPR is
part of a multi-product Joint Agreement covering six rulemakings
(residential clothes washers; consumer clothes dryers; consumer
conventional cooking products; dishwashers; refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; and miscellaneous refrigeration
products). The signatories indicate that the Joint Agreement for the
six rulemakings should be considered as a joint statement of
recommended standards, to be adopted in its entirety. As discussed in
section V.B.2.e of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register, many consumer clothes dryer OEMs also
manufacture residential clothes washers; consumer conventional cooking
products; dishwashers; refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers; and miscellaneous refrigeration products. Therefore, there
are potential integrated benefits to the Joint Agreement. Rather than
requiring compliance with five amended standards in a single year
(2027),\18\ the negotiated multi-product Joint Agreement staggers the
compliance dates for the five amended standards over a 4-year period
(2027-2030). DOE understands that the compliance dates recommended in
the Joint Agreement would help reduce cumulative regulatory burden by
allowing greater flexibility in the allocation of resources to comply
with multiple concurrent amended standards and by aligning compliance
dates for products that are typically designed or sold as matched pairs
(i.e., clothes washers and clothes dryers). The Joint Agreement also
provides additional years of regulatory certainty for manufacturers and
their suppliers while still achieving the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The analyses for residential clothes washers (88 FR 13520);
consumer clothes dryers (87 FR 51734); consumer conventional cooking
products (88 FR 6818); dishwashers (88 FR 32514); and refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (88 FR 12452) utilized a 2027
compliance year for analysis at the proposed rule stage.
Miscellaneous refrigeration products (88 FR 12452) utilized a 2029
compliance year for the NOPR analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed amended energy conservation standards for consumer
clothes dryers, which are expressed as CEFD2, are shown in
Table III.3.
Table III.3--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer
Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class CEFD2 (lb/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity)... 3.93
(ii) Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft3 4.33
capacity).............................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 3.57
ft3 capacity).........................................
(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) 3.48
(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity)... 2.02
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 2.68
ft3 capacity).........................................
(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer...... 2.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022$) of the
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy,
minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized
monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission
reductions.
Table II.4 shows the annualized values for consumer clothes dryers
under the Recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$. The results under the
primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NOX and SO2 reductions, and the 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for consumer clothes dryers would be $60.0 million
per year in increased equipment installed costs, while the estimated
annual benefits would be $971.4 million from reduced equipment
operating costs, $185.5 million in GHG reductions, and $259.9 million
from reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this case,
the net benefit would amount to $1,357 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards for consumer clothes dryers
would be $57.2 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits would be $1,177 million in reduced operating
costs, $185.5 million from GHG reductions, and $349.4 million from
reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this case, the
net benefit would amount to $1,654 million per year.
[[Page 18257]]
Table II.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2022$/year
--------------------------------------------
Low-net- High-net-
Primary benefits benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................... 1,177 1,103 1,230
Climate Benefits *................................................. 185.5 178.9 187.8
Health Benefits **................................................. 349.4 337.2 353.7
Total Benefits [dagger]............................................ 1,712 1,619 1,771
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]........................ 57.2 58.9 54.4
Net Benefits....................................................... 1,654 1,560 1,717
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV[Dagger])......................... (12)-(10) (12)-(10) (12)-(10)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................... 971.4 915.5 1,014
Climate Benefits *................................................. 185.5 178.9 187.8
Health Benefits **................................................. 259.9 251.5 262.8
Total Benefits [dagger]............................................ 1,417 1,346 1,464
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]........................ 60.0 61.2 57.7
Net Benefits....................................................... 1,357 1,285 1,407
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV[Dagger][Dagger])................. (12)-(10) (12)-(10) (12)-(10)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer clothes dryers shipped during the
period 2028-2057. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products
shipped during the period 2028-2057. The Primary, Low-Net-Benefits, and High-Net-Benefits estimates utilize
projections of energy prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic
Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the
Primary Estimate, a constant rate in the Low-Net-Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High-Net-
Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and
IV.H.3 of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Note that the
Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of the
direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register). For presentational purposes of
this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown,
but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of
considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of
reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in
February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
[Dagger][Dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national
impact analysis. See sections IV.F and IV.H of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register. DOE's NIA includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain
beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase
in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on
manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register and chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers'
pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA
produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the
present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital
expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry
weighted average cost of capital value of 7.5 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis
(see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost
of capital). For consumer clothes dryers, those values are -$12 million to -$10 million. DOE accounts for that
range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of the direct
final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. DOE is presenting the range of impacts
to the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the
manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the
Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-
unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of
estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in chapter 12 of
the direct final rule TSD, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposed
rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's
Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for
this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $1,642 million to $1,644 million at 3-percent
discount rate and would range from $1,345 million to $1,347 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses (
) indicate negative values.
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule until the date provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
Comments relating to the direct final rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register, should be submitted as instructed
therein.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed
[[Page 18258]]
properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE
may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
B. Public Meeting
As stated previously, if DOE withdraws the direct final rule
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for
additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of
any meeting in the Federal Register.
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are
identical to those conducted for the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Please see the direct
final rule for further details.
A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and
policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of
its rules on small entities are properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website
(www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has not prepared an
IRFA for the products that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003. DOE certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The factual basis of this certification is set forth in
the following paragraphs.
For manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers, the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the
rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size standards are listed by North
American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code and industry
description and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. Manufacturing of consumer clothes dryers is classified
under NAICS 335220, ``Major Household Appliance Manufacturing.'' The
SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer for an entity to be
considered as a small business for this category.
To estimate the number of companies that could be small business
manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers, DOE conducted a market survey
using public information and subscription-based company reports to
identify potential small business
[[Page 18259]]
manufacturers. DOE reviewed its Compliance Certification Database,\19\
California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database
System,\20\ the ENERGY STAR Product Finder dataset,\21\ individual
company websites, import/export logs, and product specifications to
create a list of companies that manufacture, produce, import, or
private label the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE relied on
public information and market research tools (e.g., reports from Dun
and Bradstreet \22\) to determine company structure, location,
headcount, and annual revenue. DOE screened out companies that do not
manufacture the products covered by this proposed rulemaking, do not
meet the SBA's definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned
and operated. DOE also asked stakeholders and industry representatives
if they were aware of any small manufacturers during manufacturer
interviews and through requests for comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification
Database is available at regulations.doe.gov/certification-data
(last accessed April 28, 2023).
\20\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System is available at
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx
(last accessed April 28, 2023).
\21\ ENERGY STAR Product Finder is available at
www.energystar.gov/productfinder (last accessed April 28, 2023).
\22\ The Dun & Bradstreet subscription login is available at
app.dnbhoovers.com (last accessed June 8, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE identified 19 OEMs of consumer clothes dryers. Of these 19
OEMs, DOE determined none of them qualify as a domestic ``small
business manufacturer'' of consumer clothes dryers. Given the lack of
small domestic OEMs with a direct compliance burden, DOE concludes that
this proposed rule would not have ``a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.''
DOE will transmit the certification and supporting statement of
factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February
29, 2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on March 1, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 430.32 by adding paragraph (h)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their
compliance dates.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(4) Clothes dryers manufactured on or after March 1, 2028, shall
have a combined energy factor, determined in accordance with appendix
D2 of this subpart, no less than:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEFD2 (lb/kWh)
Product class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) *. 3.93
(ii) Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft3 4.33
capacity).............................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 3.57
ft3 capacity).........................................
(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater 3.48
capacity)**...........................................
(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity)... 2.02
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 2.68
ft3 capacity).........................................
(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer...... 2.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The energy conservation standards in this product class do not apply
to Vented Electric, Standard clothes dryers with a cycle time of less
than 30 minutes, when tested according to appendix D2 in subpart B of
this part.
** The energy conservation standards in this product class do not apply
to Vented Gas, Standard clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than
30 minutes, when tested according to appendix D2 in subpart B of this
part.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-04766 Filed 3-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P