Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers, 18164-18243 [2024-04765]
Download as PDF
18164
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy
conservation standards for various
consumer products and certain
commercial and industrial equipment,
including consumer clothes dryers. In
this direct final rule, DOE is adopting
amended energy conservation standards
for consumer clothes dryers. DOE has
determined that the amended energy
conservation standards for these
products would result in significant
conservation of energy and are
technologically feasible and
economically justified.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is
July 10, 2024. If adverse comments are
received by July 1, 2024 and DOE
determines that such comments may
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the direct final rule under
42 U.S.C. 6295(o), a timely withdrawal
of this rule will be published in the
Federal Register. If no such adverse
comments are received, compliance
with the amended standards established
for consumer clothes dryers in this
direct final rule is required on and after
March 1, 2028. Comments regarding the
likely competitive impact of the
standards contained in this direct final
rule should be sent to the Department of
Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES
section on or before April 11, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this
rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available,
such as information that is exempt from
public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2014-BT-STD-0058. The docket web
page contains instructions on how to
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to
submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket,
contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
The U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division invites input from
market participants and other interested
persons with views on the likely
competitive impact of the standards
contained in this direct final rule.
Interested persons may contact the
Antitrust Division at energy.standards@
usdoj.gov on or before the date specified
in the DATES section. Please indicate in
the ‘‘Subject’’ line of your email the title
and Docket Number of this direct final
rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–
5649. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC–33, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (240) 597–
6265. Email: Matthew.Schneider@
hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. Current Test Procedure
3. The Joint Agreement
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage
B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points
of View
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and
Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to
Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related
Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
2. Technology Options
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened Out Technologies
a. Thermoelectric Heating, Electric Only
b. Microwave, Electric Only
c. Indirect Heating
d. RF Drying, Electric Only
e. Ultrasonic Drying, Electric Only
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
b. Incremental Efficiency Levels
2. Cost Analysis
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model
and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
3. Discussion of MIA Comments
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in
DOE’s Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous
Oxide
c. Sensitivity Analysis Using Updated 2023
SC–GHG Estimates
2. Monetization of Other Emissions
Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
O. Regulatory Impact Analysis
P. Other Comments
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
1. Economic Impacts on Individual
Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs
and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of
Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for Consumer Clothes Dryer
Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the
Adopted Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866,
13563 and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA 2
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6309) These products include consumer
clothes dryers, the subject of this direct
final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or
amended energy conservation standard
must, among other things, be designed
to achieve the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency that DOE
determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or
amended standard must result in
significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In light of the above and under the
authority provided by 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct
final rule amending energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers.
The adopted standard levels in this
direct final rule were proposed in a
letter submitted to DOE jointly by
groups representing manufacturers,
energy and environmental advocates,
consumer groups, and a utility. This
letter, titled ‘‘Energy Efficiency
Agreement of 2023’’ (hereafter, the
‘‘Joint Agreement’’,) 3 recommends
specific energy conservation standards
for consumer clothes dryers that, in the
commenters’ view, would satisfy the
EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o). DOE subsequently received
letters of support from States—
including New York, California, and
Massachusetts 4—and utilities—
including San Diego Gas and Electric
(‘‘SDG&E’’) and Southern California
Edison (‘‘SCE’’) 5—advocating for the
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
3 Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/
EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0055.
4 Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/
EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0056.
5 Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/
EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0057.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18165
adoption of the recommended
standards.
In accordance with the direct final
rule provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4),
DOE has determined that the
recommendations contained in the Joint
Agreement are compliant with 42 U.S.C.
6295(o). As required by 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is also
simultaneously publishing elsewhere in
this Federal Register a notice of
proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) that
contains standards identical to those
adopted in this direct final rule.
Consistent with the statute, DOE is
providing a 110-day public comment
period on the direct final rule. (42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines
that any comments received provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)
or any other applicable law, DOE will
publish the reasons for withdrawal and
continue the rulemaking under the
NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) See
section II.A of this document for more
details on DOE’s statutory authority.
The amended standards that DOE is
adopting in this direct final rule are the
efficiency levels recommended in the
Joint Agreement (shown in Table I.1).
The standards are expressed in terms of
the combined energy factor (‘‘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. The amended
standards recommended in the Joint
Agreement are represented as trial
standard level (‘‘TSL’’) 3 (hereinafter the
‘‘Recommended TSL’’) and are
described in section V.A of this
document. The Joint Agreement’s
standards for consumer clothes dryers
apply to all products listed in Table I.1
and manufactured in, or imported into,
the United States starting on March 1,
2028.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18166
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE I.1—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
[Compliance starting March 1, 2028]
Minimum_CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
Product class
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (‘‘ft3’’) or greater capacity) ...................................................................................................
(ii) Electric, Compact (120 volts (‘‘V’’)) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ..............................................................................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ................................................................................................
(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ................................................................................................................
(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ..................................................................................................................
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ..............................................................................................
(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer .......................................................................................................................
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
Table I.2 summarizes DOE’s
evaluation of the economic impacts of
the adopted standards on consumers of
consumer clothes dryers, as measured
by the average life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’)
savings and the simple payback period
(‘‘PBP’’).6 The average LCC savings are
positive for all product classes, and the
3.93
4.33
3.57
3.48
2.02
2.68
2.33
PBP is less than the average lifetime of
consumer clothes dryers, which is
estimated to be 14 years (see section
IV.F of this document).
TABLE I.2—IMPACTS OF ADOPTED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF CONSUMER CLOTHES
DRYERS
Average LCC
savings
(2022$)
Consumer clothes dryer class
Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ................................................................................................
Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) .....................................................................................
Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ........................................................................
Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ........................................................................................
Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ......................................................................
Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer ................................................................................................
DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the
adopted standards on consumers is
described in section IV.F of this
document.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
B. Impact on Manufacturers
million to a decrease of approximately
$119.7 million. In order to bring
products into compliance with amended
standards, it is estimated that industry
will incur total conversion costs of
$180.7 million.
DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the
adopted standards on manufacturers is
described in section IV.J and section
V.B.2 of this document.
The industry net present value
(‘‘INPV’’) is the sum of the discounted
cash flows to the industry from the base
year (2024) through the end of the
analysis period, which is 30 years from
the analyzed compliance date.7 Using a
real discount rate of 7.5 percent, DOE
estimates that the INPV for
manufacturers of consumer clothes
dryers in the case without amended
standards is $2.12 billion in 2022$.8
Under the adopted standards, which
align with the Recommended TSL for
consumer clothes dryers, DOE estimates
the change in INPV to range from ¥6.8
percent to ¥5.7 percent, which is a
decrease of approximately $144.2
DOE’s analyses indicate that the
adopted energy conservation standards
for consumer clothes dryers would save
a significant amount of energy. Relative
to the case without amended standards,
the lifetime energy savings for consumer
clothes dryers purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the anticipated
year of compliance with the amended
standards (2028–2057), amount to 2.7
quadrillion British thermal units
6 The average LCC savings refer to consumers that
are affected by a standard and are measured relative
to the efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case, which depicts the market in the
compliance year in the absence of new or amended
standards (see section IV.F.9 of this document). The
simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific
efficiency levels, is measured relative to the
baseline product (see section IV.C of this
document).
7 DOE’s analysis period extends 30 years from the
compliance year. The analysis period for the MIA
ranges from 2024–2056 for the no-new-standards
case and all TSLs, except for TSL 3 (the
Recommended TSL). The analysis period for the
Recommended TSL ranges from 2024–2057 due to
the 2028 compliance year.
8 The no-new-standards case INPV of $2.12
billion reflects the sum of discounted free cash
flows from 2024–2056 (from the reference year to
30 years after the 2027 compliance date) plus a
discounted terminal value.
9 All monetary values in this document are
expressed in 2022 dollars and, where appropriate,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
C. National Benefits and Costs 9
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
$252
66
90
102
99
11
Simple payback
period
(years)
0.6
2.2
2.0
1.9
0.4
0.0
(‘‘Btu’’), or quads.10 This represents a
savings of 11 percent relative to the
energy use of these products in the case
without amended standards (referred to
as the ‘‘no-new-standards case’’).
The cumulative net present value
(‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer benefits of
the standards for consumer clothes
dryers ranges from $ 9.23 billion (at a
7-percent discount rate) to $20.08
billion (at a 3-percent discount rate).
This NPV expresses the estimated total
value of future operating-cost savings
minus the estimated increased product
and installation costs for consumer
clothes dryers purchased during the
period 2028–2057.
In addition, the adopted standards for
consumer clothes dryers are projected to
yield significant environmental benefits.
DOE estimates that the standards will
result in cumulative emission
reductions (over the same period as for
are discounted to 2024 unless explicitly stated
otherwise.
10 The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’)
energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the
energy consumed in extracting, processing, and
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas,
petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more
complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency
standards. For more information on the FFC metric,
see section IV.H.2 of this document.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
energy savings) of 57.1 million metric
tons (‘‘Mt’’) 11 of carbon dioxide
(‘‘CO2’’), 13.9 thousand tons of sulfur
dioxide (‘‘SO2’’), 116.5 thousand tons of
nitrogen oxides (‘‘NOX’’), 527.6
thousand tons of methane (‘‘CH4’’), 0.5
thousand tons of nitrous oxide (‘‘N2O’’),
and 0.1 tons of mercury (‘‘Hg’’).12 The
estimated cumulative reduction in CO2
emissions through 2030 amounts to 1.3
Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions
resulting from the annual electricity use
of more than 260 thousand homes.
DOE estimates the value of climate
benefits from a reduction in greenhouse
gases (‘‘GHG’’) using four different
estimates of the social cost of CO2 (‘‘SC–
CO2’’), the social cost of methane (‘‘SC–
CH4’’), and the social cost of nitrous
oxide (‘‘SC–N2O’’). Together these
represent the social cost of GHG (‘‘SC–
GHG’’). DOE used interim SC–GHG
values (in terms of benefit per ton of
GHG avoided) developed by an
Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(‘‘IWG’’).13 The derivation of these
values is discussed in section IV.L of
this document. For presentational
purposes, the climate benefits
associated with the average SC–GHG at
a 3-percent discount rate are estimated
to be $3.3 billion. DOE does not have a
single central SC–GHG point estimate
and it emphasizes the importance and
value of considering the benefits
calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG
estimates.
DOE estimated the monetary health
benefits of SO2 and NOX emissions
reductions, using benefit-per-ton
estimates from the Environmental
Protection Agency,14 as discussed in
section IV.L of this document. DOE
estimated the present value of the health
benefits would be $2.6 billion using a 7-
18167
percent discount rate, and $6.3 billion
using a 3-percent discount rate.15 DOE
is currently only monetizing health
benefits from changes in ambient fine
particulate matter (PM2.5)
concentrations from two precursors
(SO2 and NOX), and from changes in
ambient ozone from one precursor (for
NOX), but will continue to assess the
ability to monetize other effects such as
health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions.
Table I.3 summarizes the monetized
benefits and costs expected to result
from the amended standards for
consumer clothes dryers. There are
other important unquantified effects,
including certain unquantified climate
benefits, unquantified public health
benefits from the reduction of toxic air
pollutants and other emissions,
unquantified energy security benefits,
and distributional effects, among others.
TABLE I.3—SUMMARY OF MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ADOPTED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR
CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Billion
(2022$)
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................................................................................................................................
Climate Benefits * .............................................................................................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .............................................................................................................................................................................
Total Benefits † ................................................................................................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ..........................................................................................................................................
Net Monetized Benefits ...................................................................................................................................................................
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV ‡‡) ......................................................................................................................................
21.1
3.3
6.3
30.7
1.0
20.1
(0.14)–(0.12)
7% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................................................................................................................................
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ..............................................................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .............................................................................................................................................................................
Total Benefits † ................................................................................................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ..........................................................................................................................................
Net Monetized Benefits ...................................................................................................................................................................
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV ‡‡) ......................................................................................................................................
9.8
3.3
2.6
15.8
0.6
9.2
(0.14)–(0.12)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer clothes dryers shipped in 2028–2057. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028–2057.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational
purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane,
and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for 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 this document for more details.
† Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes,
total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with a 3-percent discount rate.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
11 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons.
Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented
in short tons.
12 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative
to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key
assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2023
(‘‘AEO2023’’). AEO2023 represents current Federal
and State legislation and final implementation of
regulations as of the time of its preparation. See
section IV.K of this document for further discussion
of AEO2023 assumptions that affect air pollutant
emissions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
13 To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG
emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates
presented in the Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990
published in February 2021 by the IWG. (‘‘February
2021 SC–GHG TSD’’). www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/
TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbon
MethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
14 U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of
Reducing Directly Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at
www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-tonreducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.
15 DOE estimates the economic value of these
emissions reductions resulting from the considered
trial standard levels (‘‘TSLs’’) for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive
Order 12866.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18168
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See
sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE’s national impact analysis includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution
chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by
the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of this document
and chapter 12 of the direct final rule technical support document (‘‘TSD’’). In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers’ pricing decisions
based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the
rule’s expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 7.5 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For consumer clothes dryers, those values are ¥$144 million to ¥$120 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the
INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in
the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the
range of estimated change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this direct final rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption,
which is consistent with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this direct final
rule, the net benefits would range from $19.96 billion to $19.98 billion at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $9.06 billion to $9.08 billion at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( ) indicate negative values.
The benefits and costs of the adopted
standards can also be expressed in terms
of annualized values. The monetary
values for the total annualized net
benefits are (1) the reduced consumer
operating costs, minus (2) the increase
in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of
climate and health benefits of emission
reductions, all annualized.16
The national operating cost savings
are domestic private U.S. consumer
monetary savings that occur as a result
of purchasing the covered products and
are measured for the lifetime of
consumer clothes dryers shipped in
2028–2057. The benefits associated with
reduced emissions achieved as a result
of the adopted standards are also
calculated based on the lifetime of
consumer clothes dryers shipped in
2028–2057. Total benefits for both the 3percent and 7-percent cases are
presented using the average GHG social
costs with a 3-percent discount rate.
Estimates of SC–GHG values are
presented for all four SC–GHG discount
rates in section IV.L of this document.
Table I.4 presents the total estimated
monetized benefits and costs associated
with the adopted standards, expressed
in terms of annualized values. The
results under the primary estimate are
as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs and health
benefits from reduced NOX and SO2
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
cost of the standards adopted in this
rule is $60.0 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $971.4
million in reduced equipment operating
costs, $185.5 million in climate benefits,
and $259.9 million in health benefits. In
this case, the net benefit would amount
to $1,357 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of
the standards is $57.2 million per year
in increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $1,177
million in reduced operating costs,
$185.5 million in climate benefits, and
$349.4 million in health benefits. In this
case, the net benefit would amount to
$1,654 million per year.
TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ADOPTED STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS (2028–
2057)
Million/year
(2022$)
Primary
estimate
Low-net-benefits
estimate
High-net-benefits
estimate
1,177
185.5
349.4
1,712
57.2
1,654
(12)–(10)
1,103
178.9
337.2
1,619
58.9
1,560
(12)–(10)
1,230
187.8
353.7
1,771
54.4
1,717
(12)–(10)
971.4
185.5
259.9
1,417
60.0
1,357
915.5
178.9
251.5
1,346
61.2
1,285
1,014
187.8
262.8
1,464
57.7
1,407
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................................................................
Climate Benefits * .............................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .............................................................................................................
Total Benefits † ................................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ............................................................................
Net Benefits .....................................................................................................................
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV ‡‡) ......................................................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
7% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................................................................
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ..............................................................................
Health Benefits ** .............................................................................................................
Total Benefits † ................................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ..........................................................................
Net Benefits .....................................................................................................................
16 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits
into annualized values, DOE calculated a present
value in 2024, the year used for discounting the
NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated
with each year’s shipments in the year in which the
shipments occur (e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then
discounted the present value from each year to
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2024. Using the present value, DOE then calculated
the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period,
starting in the compliance year, that yields the same
present value.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
18169
TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ADOPTED STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS (2028–
2057)—Continued
Million/year
(2022$)
Primary
estimate
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV ‡‡) ......................................................................
Low-net-benefits
estimate
High-net-benefits
estimate
(12)–(10)
(12)–(10)
(12)–(10)
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer clothes dryers shipped in 2028–2057. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028–2057. The Primary, Low-Net-Benefits, and High-Net-Benefits estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a constant rate in the Low-Net-Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High-Net-Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum up to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational
purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not
have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four
sets of SC–GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the
Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in
February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for 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 this document for more details.
† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with a 3-percent discount rate, but DOE
does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See
sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE’s national impact analysis includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution
chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by
the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of this document
and chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers’ pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding
investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule’s expected impact on the INPV.
The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and
manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 7.5 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis (see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry
weighted average cost of capital). For consumer clothes dryers, those values are ¥$12 million to ¥$10 million. DOE accounts for that range of
likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to
the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario
used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE
assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE
includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in chapter 12 of this direct
final rule TSD, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this direct final rule to society, including potential changes in
production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized
net benefit calculation for this direct final rule, the annualized net benefits, using the primary estimate, would range from $1,642 million to $1,644
at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $1,345 million to $1,347 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( ) indicate negative
values.
DOE’s analysis of the national impacts
of the adopted standards is described in
sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this
document.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
D. Conclusion
DOE has determined that the Joint
Agreement was submitted jointly by
interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of
view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A). After considering the
recommended standards and weighing
the benefits and burdens, DOE has
determined that the recommended
standards are in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards. Specifically, the Secretary of
Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) has determined
that the adoption of the recommended
standards would result in the significant
conservation of energy and is the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. In
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
determining whether the recommended
standards are economically justified, the
Secretary has determined that the
benefits of the recommended standards
exceed the burdens. The Secretary has
further concluded that the
recommended standards, when
considering the benefits of energy
savings, positive NPV of consumer
benefits, emission reductions, the
estimated monetary value of the
emissions reductions, and positive
average LCC savings, would yield
benefits that outweigh the negative
impacts on some consumers and on
manufacturers, including the conversion
costs that could result in a reduction in
INPV for manufacturers.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs and NOX
and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3percent discount rate case for GHG
social costs, the estimated cost of the
standards for consumer clothes dryers is
$60.0 million per year in increased
product costs, while the estimated
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
annual benefits are $971.4 million in
reduced product operating costs, $185.5
million in climate benefits, and $259.9
million in health benefits. The net
benefit amounts to $1,357 million per
year. DOE notes that the net benefits are
substantial even in the absence of the
climate benefits,17 and DOE would
adopt the same standards in the absence
of such benefits.
The significance of energy savings
offered by a new or amended energy
conservation standard cannot be
determined without knowledge of the
specific circumstances surrounding a
given rulemaking.18 For example, some
covered products and equipment have
most of their energy consumption occur
during periods of peak energy demand.
17 The information on climate benefits is provided
in compliance with Executive Order 12866.
18 Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for
Consideration in New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for
Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial
Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18170
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
The impacts of these products on the
energy infrastructure can be more
pronounced than products with
relatively constant demand.
Accordingly, DOE evaluates the
significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis.
As previously mentioned, the
standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings of 2.7
quads FFC, the equivalent of the
primary annual energy use of 18 million
homes. In addition, they are projected to
reduce cumulative CO2 emissions by
57.1 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE
has determined the energy savings from
the standard levels adopted in this
direct final rule are ‘‘significant’’ within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
A more detailed discussion of the basis
for these conclusions is contained in the
remainder of this document and the
accompanying TSD.
Under the authority provided by 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this
direct final rule amending the energy
conservation standards for consumer
clothes dryers. Consistent with this
authority, DOE is also simultaneously
publishing elsewhere in this Federal
Register a NOPR proposing standards
that are identical to those contained in
this direct final rule. See 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)(i).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
II. Introduction
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying this direct final rule, as well
as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment
of standards for consumer clothes
dryers.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of
EPCA established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles.
These products include consumer
clothes dryers, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(8)) EPCA
prescribed energy conservation
standards for these products (42 U.S.C.
6295(g)(3)), and directed DOE to
conduct future rulemakings to
determine whether to amend these
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)) EPCA
further provides that, not later than 6
years after the issuance of any final rule
establishing or amending a standard,
DOE must publish either a notice of
determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or
a NOPR including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1))
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the
establishment of Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4)
certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA specifically include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6296).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant
waivers of Federal preemption in
limited instances for particular State
laws or regulations, in accordance with
the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Subject to certain criteria and
conditions, DOE is required to develop
test procedures to measure the energy
efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of each covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of
covered products must use the
prescribed DOE test procedure as the
basis for certifying to DOE that their
products comply with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted
under EPCA and when making
representations to the public regarding
the energy use or efficiency of those
products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and
6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to determine whether
the products comply with standards
adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for
consumer clothes dryers appear at title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(‘‘CFR’’) part 430, subpart B, appendix
D1 (‘‘appendix D1’’) and appendix D2
(‘‘appendix D2’’).
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered products,
including consumer clothes dryers. Any
new or amended standard for a covered
product must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary determines
is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) Furthermore, DOE may
not adopt any standard that would not
result in the significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a
standard if DOE determines by rule that
the standard is not technologically
feasible or economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding
whether a proposed standard is
economically justified, DOE must
determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B)) DOE must make this
determination after receiving comments
on the proposed standard, and by
considering, to the greatest extent
practicable, the following seven
statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the
standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the
standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the covered products in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the
price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that
are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of
energy (or as applicable, water) savings
likely to result directly from the
standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered products
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and
water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary
considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII))
Further, EPCA, as codified,
establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified
if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a
product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less
than three times the value of the energy
savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the
standard, as calculated under the
applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what
is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’
provision, which prevents the Secretary
from prescribing any amended standard
that either increases the maximum
allowable energy use or decreases the
minimum required energy efficiency of
a covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not
prescribe an amended or new standard
if interested persons have established by
a preponderance of evidence that the
standard is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States in
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
18171
interested persons that are fairly
representative of relative points of view
as a direct final rule when the
recommended standards are in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86
FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But the
direct final rule provision in EPCA does
not impose additional requirements
applicable to other standards
rulemakings, which is consistent with
the unique circumstances of rules
issued through consensus agreements
under DOE’s direct final rule authority.
Id. DOE’s discretion remains bounded
by its statutory mandate to adopt a
standard that results in the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and
economically justified—a requirement
found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Id. As such,
DOE’s review and analysis of the Joint
Agreement is limited to whether the
recommended standards satisfy the
criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
any covered product type (or class) of
performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the
United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
EPCA specifies requirements when
promulgating an energy conservation
standard for a covered product that has
two or more subcategories. A rule
prescribing an energy conservation
standard for a type (or class) of product
must specify a different standard level
for a type or class of products that has
the same function or intended use if
DOE determines that products within
such group (A) consume a different kind
of energy from that consumed by other
covered products within such type (or
class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other
products within such type (or class) do
not have and such feature justifies a
higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard for a group of
products, DOE consider such factors as
the utility to the consumer of such a
feature and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing
such a standard must include an
explanation of the basis on which such
higher or lower level was established.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Additionally, pursuant to the
amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007
(‘‘EISA 2007’’), Public Law 110–140,
final rules for new or amended energy
conservation standards promulgated
after July 1, 2010, are required to
address standby mode and off mode
energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3))
Specifically, when DOE adopts a
standard for a covered product after that
date, it must, if justified by the criteria
for adoption of standards under EPCA
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby
mode and off mode energy use into a
single standard, or, if that is not feasible,
adopt a separate standard for such
energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current test
procedures for consumer clothes dryers
address standby mode and off mode
energy use, as do the amended
standards adopted in this direct final
rule.
Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in
relevant part, to grant DOE authority to
directly issue a final rule (i.e., a ‘‘direct
final rule’’) establishing an energy
conservation standard upon receipt of a
statement submitted jointly by
interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view
(including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products,
States, and efficiency advocates), as
determined by the Secretary, that
contains recommendations with respect
to an energy or water conservation
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the
Secretary must also determine whether
a jointly submitted recommendation for
an energy or water conservation
standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.
The direct final rule must be
published simultaneously with a NOPR
that proposes an energy or water
conservation standard that is identical
to the standard established in the direct
final rule, and DOE must provide a
public comment period of at least 110
days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)–(B)) While DOE typically
provides a comment period of 60 days
on proposed standards, for a NOPR
accompanying a direct final rule, DOE
provides a comment period of the same
length as the comment period on the
direct final rule—i.e., 110 days. Based
on the comments received during this
period, the direct final rule will either
become effective, or DOE will withdraw
it not later than 120 days after its
issuance if: (1) one or more adverse
comments is received, and (2) DOE
determines that those comments, when
viewed in light of the rulemaking record
related to the direct final rule, may
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the direct final rule under
42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an alternative
joint recommendation may also trigger a
DOE withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the same manner. (Id.)
DOE has previously explained its
interpretation of its direct final rule
authority. In a final rule amending the
Department’s ‘‘Procedures,
Interpretations and Policies for
Consideration of New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer
Products’’ at 10 CFR part 430, subpart
C, appendix A (‘‘Process Rule’’ or
‘‘appendix A’’), DOE noted that it may
issue standards recommended by
In a direct final rule published on
April 21, 2011, (‘‘April 2011 Direct
Final Rule’’) DOE prescribed the current
energy conservation standards for
consumer clothes dryers manufactured
on and after January 1, 2015. 76 FR
22454.19 These standards are set forth in
DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR
430.32(h)(3) and are shown in Table II.1.
These standards are consistent with a
prior joint proposal submitted to DOE
by interested parties representing
manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, and consumer
groups.20
The current standards are defined in
terms of a minimum allowable CEF, as
measured according to appendix D1.
Even though DOE maintained the same
energy efficiency descriptor for both
appendix D1 and appendix D2, DOE
notes that the CEF values are not
equivalent because of the extensive
differences in test methods.21 To avoid
potential confusion that would result
from using the same efficiency
descriptor for both test procedures as it
relates to the standards discussed in this
document, DOE is including a ‘‘D1’’ or
‘‘D2’’ subscript when referring to the
appendix D1 CEF and appendix D2 CEF,
respectively (‘‘CEFD1’’ and ‘‘CEFD2’’).
19 DOE published a confirmation of effective date
and compliance date for the direct final rule on
August 24, 2011. 76 FR 52854.
20 Available at: www.regulations.gov/comment/
EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0049.
21 While the current standards are based on CEF
as determined in accordance with appendix D1,
manufacturers are permitted to use the appendix D2
test procedure to comply with the current
standards, as long as they use a single appendix for
all representations. Beginning on the compliance
date of the amended standards established by this
direct final rule, manufacturers will be required to
use appendix D2 to comply with the amended
standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
B. Background
1. Current Standards
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18172
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS AS MEASURED UNDER
APPENDIX D1
CEFD1
(lb/kWh)
Product class
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
(i) Vented Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ...................................................................................................................
(ii) Vented Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) .......................................................................................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ......................................................................................................
(iv) Vented Gas ....................................................................................................................................................................................
(v) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) .....................................................................................................
(vi) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer ..............................................................................................................................
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
and more accurately measures the
effects of automatic cycle termination.
EPCA authorizes DOE to design test
procedures that measure energy
efficiency, energy use, water use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The appendix D2 test
procedure, which is required for use to
demonstrate compliance with the
amended energy conservation standards
established in this direct final rule,
measures the energy consumption of a
representative use cycle that dries a load
of laundry from an initial moisture
content of 57.5 percent to an FMC of
less than 2 percent. 86 FR 56624–56625.
For timer clothes dryers, the test load is
dried until the FMC is between 1 and
2.5 percent of the bone-dry weight of the
test load. The measured energy
consumption is then normalized to
determine the energy consumption
required to dry the test load to 2-percent
FMC, with a field use factor applied to
account for the over-drying energy
consumption. For automatic termination
control clothes dryers, appendix D2
specifies that a ‘‘normal’’ program be
selected for the test cycle, and for
clothes dryers that do not have a
‘‘normal’’ program, the cycle
recommended by the manufacturer for
drying cotton or linen shall be selected.
If the drying temperature and drying
level settings can be chosen
independently of the program, they
shall be set at the maximum drying
temperature setting, and at a ‘‘normal’’
or ‘‘medium’’ dryness level setting. The
test is considered valid if the FMC of the
test load is 2 percent or less after the
completion of the test cycle. If the FMC
is greater than 2 percent, the test is
considered invalid and a new run shall
be conducted using the highest dryness
level setting.
The current 2-percent FMC
requirement using the DOE test cloth
was adopted as representative of
approximately 5-percent FMC for ‘‘realworld’’ clothing, based on data
submitted in a joint petition for
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3.73
3.61
3.27
3.30
2.55
2.08
rulemaking.22 DOE determined in the
final rule published on August 14, 2013,
that established the appendix D2 Test
procedure that the specified 2-percent
FMC using the DOE test load was
representative of consumer expectations
for dryness of clothing in field use. 78
FR 49608, 49620–49622, 49610–49611.
DOE did not amend the FMC
requirements in the October 2021 TP
Final Rule. 86 FR 56626.
DOE has conducted the rulemaking
analysis for this direct final rule based
on CEFD2 because compliance with the
amended energy conservation standards
established in this direct final rule must
be determined based on the use of
appendix D2. DOE discusses additional
details in section IV.C.1 of this
document about how it developed the
engineering baseline, in terms of 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 of recommended
standards (i.e., the Joint Agreement) for
various home appliance products,
including consumer clothes dryers,
submitted jointly by groups representing
manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, consumer
groups, and a utility.23 In addition to the
22 The petition was submitted by AHAM,
Whirlpool Corporation, General Electric Company,
Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc., BSH, Alliance
Laundry Systems, Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf,
Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics,
Miele, Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove,
Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik,
Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit,
Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and DeLonghi, American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Alliance to Save
Energy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Northwest
Power and Conservation Council, and Northeast
Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Consumer
Federation of America and the National Consumer
Law Center. See Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–TP–
0054, No. 3.
23 The signatories to the Joint Agreement include
AHAM, American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Appliance
Standards Awareness Project, Consumer Federation
of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice,
National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
recommended standards for consumer
clothes dryers, the Joint Agreement also
included separate recommendations for
several other covered products.24 And,
while acknowledging that DOE may
implement these recommendations in
separate rulemakings, the Joint
Agreement also stated that the
recommendations were recommended
as a complete package and each
recommendation is contingent upon the
other parts being implemented. DOE
understands this to mean that the Joint
Agreement is contingent upon DOE
initiating rulemaking processes to adopt
all of the recommended standards in the
agreement. That is distinguished from
an agreement where issuance of an
amended energy conservation standard
for a covered product is contingent on
issuance of amended energy
conservation standards for the other
covered products. If the Joint Agreement
were so construed, it would conflict
with the anti-backsliding provision in
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), because it would
imply the possibility that, if DOE were
unable to issue an amended standard for
a certain product, it would have to
withdraw a previously issued standard
for one of the other products. The antibacksliding 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.
A court decision issued after DOE
received the Joint Agreement is also
relevant to this rule. On March 17, 2022,
various States filed a petition seeking
review of a final rule revoking two final
rules that established product classes for
residential dishwashers with a cycle
time for the normal cycle of 60 minutes
or less, top-loading residential clothes
washers (‘‘RCWs’’) and certain classes of
consumer clothes dryers with a cycle
time of less than 30 minutes, and frontloading 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
18173
Department of Energy, DOE received a
second joint statement from this same
group of stakeholders in which the
signatories reaffirmed the Joint
Agreement, stating that the
recommended standards represent the
maximum levels of efficiency that are
technologically feasible and
economically justified.25 In the letter,
the signatories clarified that ‘‘shortcycle’’ product classes for RCWs,
clothes dryers, and dishwashers did not
exist at the time that the signatories
submitted their recommendations and it
is their understanding that these classes
also do not exist at the current time.
Accordingly, the parties clarified that
the Joint Agreement did not address
short-cycle product classes. The
signatories also stated that they did not
anticipate that the recommended energy
conservation standards in the Joint
Agreement will negatively affect
features or performance, including cycle
time, for consumer clothes dryers.
The Joint Agreement recommends
amended standard levels for consumer
clothes dryers as presented in Table II.2.
(Joint Agreement, No. 55 at p. 9) 26
Details of the Joint Agreement
recommendations for other products are
provided in the Joint Agreement posted
in the docket.27
TABLE II.2—RECOMMENDED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Minimum
energy
efficiency ratio
(lb/kWh)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Product class
Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (‘‘ft3’’) or greater capacity) ...................................................................................
3.93
Electric, Compact (120 volts (‘‘V’’)) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ...............................................................................
Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ..................................................................................
Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ..................................................................................................
Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ...................................................................................................
Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ................................................................................
Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer ..........................................................................................................
4.33
3.57
3.48
2.02
2.68
2.33
Compliance
date
March 1,
2028
When the Joint Agreement was
submitted, DOE was conducting a
rulemaking to consider amending the
standards for consumer clothes dryers.
As part of that process, DOE published
a NOPR and announced a public
meeting on August 23, 2022 (‘‘August
2022 NOPR’’) seeking comment on its
proposed amended standard to inform
its decision consistent with its
obligations under EPCA and the
Administrative Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’).
87 FR 51734. DOE subsequently held a
public webinar on September 13, 2022,
to discuss and receive comments on the
NOPR TSD.
Although DOE is adopting the Joint
Agreement as a direct final rule and no
Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Members of AHAM’s Major Appliance Division that
make the affected products include: Alliance
Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB; Beko
US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home
Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.;
Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,; Elicamex S.A. de
C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier
Company; L’Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG
Electronics; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea America
Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances
Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of
America; Perlick Corporation; Samsung Electronics
America Inc; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Smeg
S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby
Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range,
LLC; and Whirlpool Corporation.
24 The Joint Agreement contained
recommendations for 6 covered products:
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers;
clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers;
cooking products; and miscellaneous refrigeration
products.
25 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0058-0058.
26 The parenthetical reference provides a
reference for information located in the docket of
DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers. (Docket No.
EERE–2014–BT–STD–0058, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged
as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID
number at page of that document).
27 The Joint Agreement available in the docket at
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0058-0055.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18174
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
longer proceeding with its prior
rulemaking, DOE did consider relevant
comments, data, and information
obtained during that rulemaking process
in determining whether the
recommended standards from the Joint
Agreement are in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6295(o). Any discussion of
comments, data, or information in this
direct final rule that were obtained
during DOE’s prior rulemaking will
include a parenthetical reference that
provides the location of the item in the
public record.28
III. General Discussion
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
DOE is issuing this direct final rule
after determining that the recommended
standards submitted in the Joint
Agreement meet the requirements in 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). More specifically,
DOE has determined that the
recommended standards were submitted
by interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view
and the recommended standards satisfy
the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
On March 17, 2022, various states
filed a petition seeking review of a final
rule revoking two final rules that
established product classes for
residential dishwashers with a cycle
time for the normal cycle of 60 minutes
or less, top-loading RCWs and certain
classes of consumer clothes dryers with
a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, and
front-loading RCWs with a cycle time of
less than 45 minutes (collectively,
‘‘short cycle product classes’’). The
petitioners argued that the final rule
revoking the short cycle product classes
violated EPCA and was arbitrary and
capricious. On January 8, 2024, the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit granted the petition for
review and remanded the matter to DOE
for further proceedings consistent with
the Fifth Circuit’s opinion. See
Louisiana v. United States Department
of Energy, 90 F.4th 461 (5th Cir. 2024)
Following the Fifth Circuit’s decision,
the signatories to the Joint Agreement
submitted a second letter to DOE, which
stated that Joint Recommendation did
not ‘‘address’’ ‘‘short-cycle product
classes.’’ 29 That is because, as the letter
explained, such product classes ‘‘did
28 The parenthetical reference provides a
reference for information located in the docket of
DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers. (Docket No.
EERE–2014–BT–STD–0058, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged
as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID
number at page of that document).
29 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0058-0058.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
not exist’’ at the time of the Joint
Agreement.
In a recently issued Request for
Information,30 DOE is commencing a
rulemaking process on remand from the
Fifth Circuit (the Remand Proceeding)
by soliciting further information,
relevant to the issues identified by the
Fifth Circuit, regarding any short cycle
product classes. In that Remand
Proceeding, DOE will conduct the
analysis required by 42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)(B) to determine whether any
short-cycle products have a ‘‘capacity or
other performance-related feature [that]
. . . justifies a higher or lower standard
from that which applies (or will apply)
to other products. . . .’’
The current standards applicable to
any products within the scope of that
proceeding remain unchanged by this
rule. See 10 CFR 430.32(g). Consistent
with the Joint Parties’ letter, short-cycle
products are not subject to the amended
standards adopted by this direct final
rule. If the short-cycle products that
DOE will consider in the Remand
Proceeding were subject to these
standards, that would have the practical
effect of limiting the options available in
the Remand Proceeding. That is because
EPCA’s anti-backsliding provision
precludes DOE from prescribing any
amended standard ‘‘which increases the
maximum allowable energy use’’ of a
covered product. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1).
Accordingly, were the products at issue
in the Remand Proceeding also subject
to the amended standards adopted here,
the Department could only reaffirm the
standards adopted in this direct final
rule or adopt more stringent standards.
The Joint Agreement specifies the
product classes for consumer clothes
dryers: electric, standard; electric,
compact; vented electric, compact;
vented gas, standard; vented gas,
compact; ventless electric, compact; and
ventless electric, combination washerdryer. Although these product classes
were not further divided by cycle time,
DOE understands them to exclude
vented electric standard-size clothes
dryers and vented gas standard-size
clothes dryers with a cycle time of less
than 30 minutes, when tested according
to appendix D2. As previously noted,
any such ‘‘short-cycle’’ consumer
clothes dryers will be considered in the
Remand Proceeding; the current
standards applicable to such ‘‘shortcycle’’ consumer clothes dryers are
unchanged by this rule.
Under the direct final rule authority at
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE evaluates
whether recommended standards are in
30 See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=50.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
accordance with criteria contained in 42
U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE does not have the
authority to revise recommended
standards submitted under the direct
final rule provision in EPCA. Therefore,
DOE did not analyze any additional
product classes beyond those product
classes included in the Joint Agreement.
That is, DOE has not separately
considered or established amended
standards applicable to any short-cycle
product classes. In the event that DOE
establishes short-cycle product classes,
pursuant to the rulemaking on remand
from the Fifth Circuit, DOE will
necessarily consider what amended
standards ought to apply to any such
product classes and will do so in
conformance with EPCA.
DOE notes that the data and analysis
used to support this direct final rule
includes information for vented electric
standard-size clothes dryers and vented
gas standard-size clothes dryers that is
not distinguished by cycle time and is
representative of all consumer clothes
dryers currently on the market today. To
the extent that any short cycle product
classes were included in this data and
analysis, DOE believes the amount of
such data is negligible.
A. Scope of Coverage
Before discussing how the Joint
Agreement meets the requirements for
issuing a direct final rule, it is important
to clarify the scope of coverage for the
recommended standards. EPCA does not
define the term ‘‘clothes dryer.’’ (See 42
U.S.C. 6291) DOE has defined an
‘‘electric clothes dryer’’ as a cabinet-like
appliance designed to dry fabrics in a
tumble-type drum with forced air
circulation. The heat source is
electricity and the drum and blower(s)
are driven by an electric motor(s). 10
CFR 430.2. DOE has defined a ‘‘gas
clothes dryer’’ as a cabinet-like
appliance designed to dry fabrics in a
tumble-type drum with forced air
circulation. The heat source is gas and
the drum and blower(s) are driven by an
electric motor(s). Id. This direct final
rule covers consumer clothes dryers,
i.e., those consumer products that meet
the definitions of ‘‘electric clothes
dryer’’ and ‘‘gas clothes dryer,’’ as
codified at 10 CFR 430.2.
See section IV.A.1 of this document
for discussion of the product classes
analyzed in this direct final rule.
B. Fairly Representative of Relevant
Points of View
Under the direct final rule provision
in EPCA, recommended energy
conservation standards must be
submitted by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relevant points
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
of view (including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products,
States, and efficiency advocates) as
determined by DOE. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)) With respect to this
requirement, DOE notes that the Joint
Agreement included a trade association,
AHAM, which represents 11
manufacturers of consumer clothes
dryers.31 The Joint Agreement also
included environmental and energyefficiency advocacy organizations,
consumer advocacy organizations, and a
gas and electric utility company.
Additionally, DOE received a letter in
support of the Joint Agreement from the
States of New York, California, and
Massachusetts (See comment No. 56).
DOE also received a letter in support of
the Joint Agreement from a gas and
electric utility, SDG&E, and an electric
utility, SCE (See comment No. 57). As
a result, DOE has determined that the
Joint Agreement was submitted by
interested persons who are fairly
representative of relevant points of
view.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each energy conservation standards
rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening
analysis based on information gathered
on all current technology options and
prototype designs that could improve
the efficiency of the products or
equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. In evaluating the
recommended standards proposed in
the Joint Agreement, DOE conducted the
same analysis. As the first step in such
an analysis, DOE develops a list of
technology options for consideration in
consultation with manufacturers, design
engineers, and other interested parties.
DOE then determines which of those
means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers
technologies incorporated in
commercially available products or in
working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. Sections
6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A.
After DOE has determined that
particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further
evaluates each technology option in
light of the following additional
screening criteria: (1) practicability to
manufacture, install, and service; (2)
adverse impacts on product utility or
availability; (3) adverse impacts on
31 These companies include: Alliance Laundry
Systems, LLC; Beko US Inc.; BSH Home Appliances
Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home
Products, Inc.; GE Appliances, a Haier Company;
LG Electronics; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.;
Samsung Electronics America Inc.; and Whirlpool
Corporation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway
proprietary technologies. Sections
7(b)(2)–(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B
of this document discusses the results of
the screening analysis for consumer
clothes dryers, particularly the designs
DOE considered, those it screened out,
and those that are the basis for the
standards considered in this
rulemaking. For further details on the
screening analysis for this rulemaking,
see chapter 4 of the direct final rule
TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an
amended standard for a type or class of
covered product, it must determine the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in
energy use that is technologically
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) Accordingly, in the
engineering analysis, DOE determined
the maximum technologically feasible
(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy
efficiency for consumer clothes dryers
using the design parameters for the most
efficient products available on the
market or in working prototypes. The
max-tech levels that DOE determined
for this rulemaking are described in
section IV.C of this document and in
chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each TSL considered, DOE
projected energy savings from
application of the TSL to consumer
clothes dryers purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the year of
compliance with the amended standards
(2027–2056 for all TSLs except the
Recommended TSL (i.e., TSL 3) and
2028–2057 for TSL 3).32 The savings are
measured over the entire lifetime of
consumer clothes dryers purchased in
the 30-year analysis period. DOE
quantified the energy savings
attributable to each TSL as the
difference in energy consumption
between each standards case and the nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of
energy consumption that reflects how
the market for a product would likely
evolve in the absence of amended
energy conservation standards.
DOE used its national impact analysis
(‘‘NIA’’) spreadsheet models to estimate
national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) from
potential amended standards for
consumer clothes dryers. The NIA
32 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that
considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year
period.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18175
spreadsheet model (described in section
IV.H of this document) calculates energy
savings in terms of site energy, which is
the energy directly consumed by
products at the locations where they are
used. For electricity, DOE reports
national energy savings in terms of
primary energy savings, which is the
savings in the energy that is used to
generate and transmit the site
electricity. For natural gas, the primary
energy savings are considered to be
equal to the site energy savings. DOE
also calculates NES in terms of FFC
energy savings. The FFC metric includes
the energy consumed in extracting,
processing, and transporting primary
fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum
fuels), and thus presents a more
complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.33 DOE’s
approach is based on the calculation of
an FFC multiplier for each of the energy
types used by covered products or
equipment. For more information on
FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2
of this document.
2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended
standards for a covered product
including through a direct final rule,
DOE must determine that such action
would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings
offered by a new or amended energy
conservation standard cannot be
determined without knowledge of the
specific circumstances surrounding a
given rulemaking.34 For example, some
covered products and equipment have
most of their energy consumption occur
during periods of peak energy demand.
The impact of these products on the
energy infrastructure can be more
pronounced than products with
relatively constant demand.
Accordingly, DOE evaluates the
significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis, taking into account the
significance of cumulative FFC national
energy savings, the cumulative FFC
emissions reductions, and the need to
confront the global climate crisis, among
other factors.
As stated, the standard levels adopted
in this direct final rule are projected to
result in national energy savings of 2.7
quads, the equivalent of the electricity
33 The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s
statement of policy and notice of policy
amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
34 Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for
Consideration in New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for
Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial
Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18176
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
use of 18 million homes in one year.
Based on the amount of FFC savings, the
corresponding reduction in emissions,
and the need to confront the global
climate crisis, DOE has determined the
energy savings from the standard levels
adopted in this direct final rule are
‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides
seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy
conservation standard is economically
justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)(VII)) The following
sections discuss how DOE has
addressed each of those seven factors in
this direct final rulemaking.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
and Consumers
In determining the impacts of
amended standards on manufacturers,
DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in
section IV.J of this document. DOE first
uses an annual cash-flow approach to
determine the quantitative impacts. This
step includes both a short-term
assessment—based on the cost and
capital requirements during the period
between when a regulation is issued and
when entities must comply with the
regulation—and a long-term assessment
over a 30-year period. The industrywide impacts analyzed include (1)
INPV, which values the industry on the
basis of expected future cash flows; (2)
cash flows by year; (3) changes in
revenue and income; and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate.
Second, DOE analyzes and reports the
impacts on different types of
manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE
considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and
manufacturing capacity, as well as the
potential for standards to result in plant
closures and loss of capital investment.
Finally, DOE takes into account
cumulative impacts of various DOE
regulations and other regulatory
requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures
of economic impact include the changes
in LCC and PBP associated with new or
amended standards. These measures are
discussed further in the following
section. For consumers in the aggregate,
DOE also calculates the national net
present value of the consumer costs and
benefits expected to result from
particular standards. DOE also evaluates
the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
that may be affected disproportionately
by a standard.
spreadsheet models to project national
energy savings.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared
to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the
savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the covered
product in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the covered product that
are likely to result from a standard. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts
this comparison in its LCC and PBP
analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase
price of a product (including its
installation) and the operating cost
(including energy, maintenance, and
repair expenditures) discounted over
the lifetime of the product. The LCC
analysis requires a variety of inputs,
such as product prices, product energy
consumption, energy prices,
maintenance and repair costs, product
lifetime, and discount rates appropriate
for consumers. To account for
uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and
discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of
values, with probabilities attached to
each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of
time (in years) it takes consumers to
recover the increased purchase cost
(including installation) of a more
efficient product through lower
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more stringent standard by the
change in annual operating cost for the
year that standards are assumed to take
effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE
assumes that consumers will purchase
the covered products in the first year of
compliance with new or amended
standards. The LCC savings for the
considered efficiency levels are
calculated relative to the case that
reflects projected market trends in the
absence of new or amended standards.
DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is
discussed in further detail in section
IV.F of this document.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Products
In evaluating design options and the
impact of the recommended standard
levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the
utility or performance of the considered
products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV))
Based on data available to DOE, the
standards adopted in this document
would not reduce the utility or
performance of the products under
consideration in this rulemaking.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of
energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy
conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic
justification of a standard, to consider
the total projected energy savings that
are expected to result directly from the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III))
As discussed in section IV.H of this
document, DOE uses the NIA
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
e. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the
impact of any lessening of competition,
as determined in writing by the
Attorney General, that is likely to result
from a standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the
Attorney General to determine the
impact, if any, of any lessening of
competition likely to result from a
standard and to transmit such
determination to the Secretary within 60
days of the publication of a proposed
rule, together with an analysis of the
nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will
transmit a copy of this direct final rule
to the Attorney General with a request
that the Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’)
provide its determination on this issue.
DOE will consider DOJ’s comments on
the rule in determining whether to
withdraw the direct final rule. DOE will
also publish and respond to the DOJ’s
comments in the Federal Register in a
separate document.
f. Need for National Energy
Conservation
DOE also considers the need for
national energy and water conservation
in determining whether a new or
amended standard is economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI))
The energy savings from the adopted
standards are likely to provide
improvements to the security and
reliability of the Nation’s energy system.
Reductions in the demand for electricity
also may result in reduced costs for
maintaining the reliability of the
Nation’s electricity system. DOE
conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how standards may affect the
Nation’s needed power generation
capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of
this document.
DOE maintains that environmental
and public health benefits associated
with the more efficient use of energy are
important to take into account when
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
considering the need for national energy
conservation. The adopted standards are
likely to result in environmental
benefits in the form of reduced
emissions of air pollutants and GHGs
associated with energy production and
use. DOE conducts an emissions
analysis to estimate how potential
standards may affect these emissions, as
discussed in section IV.K of this
document; the estimated emissions
impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of
this document. DOE also estimates the
economic value of emissions reductions
resulting from the considered TSLs, as
discussed in section IV.L of this
document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified, DOE may consider any other
factors that the Secretary deems to be
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII))
To the extent DOE identifies any
relevant information regarding
economic justification that does not fit
into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such
information under ‘‘other factors.’’
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a
rebuttable presumption that an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified if the additional cost to the
consumer of a product that meets the
standard is less than three times the
value of the first year’s energy savings
resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE
test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP
analyses generate values used to
calculate the effect potential amended
energy conservation standards would
have on the payback period for
consumers. These analyses include, but
are not limited to, the 3-year payback
period contemplated under the
rebuttable presumption test. In addition,
DOE routinely conducts an economic
analysis that considers the full range of
impacts to consumers, manufacturers,
the Nation, and the environment, as
required under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this
analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s
evaluation of the economic justification
for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of
any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable
presumption payback calculation is
discussed in section IV.F of this
document.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
18177
IV. Methodology and Discussion of
Related Comments
discussion of the market and technology
assessment.
This section addresses the analyses
DOE has performed for this rulemaking
regarding consumer clothes dryers.
Separate subsections address each
component of DOE’s analyses, including
relevant comments DOE received during
its separate rulemaking to amend the
energy conservation standards for
consumer clothes dryers prior to
receiving the Joint Agreement.
DOE used several analytical tools to
estimate the impact of the standards
considered in this document. The first
tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the
LCC savings and PBP of potential
amended or new energy conservation
standards. The national impacts
analysis uses a second spreadsheet set
that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and
net present value of total consumer
costs and savings expected to result
from potential energy conservation
standards. DOE uses the third
spreadsheet tool, the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), to
assess manufacturer impacts of potential
standards. These three spreadsheet tools
are available on the DOE website for this
rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/
docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058.
Additionally, DOE used output from the
latest version of the Energy Information
Administration’s (‘‘EIA’s’’) Annual
Energy Outlook 2023 (‘‘AEO2023’’) for
the emissions and utility impact
analyses.
1. Product Classes
The Joint Agreement specifies seven
product classes for consumer clothes
dryers. (Joint Agreement, No. 55 at p. 9).
In this direct final rule, DOE is adopting
the product classes from the Joint
Agreement, as listed in Table IV.1.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the
market and technology assessment that
provides an overall picture of the
market for the products concerned,
including the purpose of the products,
the industry structure, manufacturers,
market characteristics, and technologies
used in the products. This activity
includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily
on publicly available information. The
subjects addressed in the market and
technology assessment for this
rulemaking include (1) a determination
of the scope of the rulemaking and
product classes, (2) manufacturers and
industry structure, (3) existing
efficiency programs, (4) shipments
information, (5) market and industry
trends, and (6) technologies or design
options that could improve the energy
efficiency of consumer clothes dryers.
The key findings of DOE’s market
assessment are summarized in the
following sections. See chapter 3 of the
direct final rule TSD for further
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
TABLE IV.1—JOINT AGREEMENT CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYER PRODUCT
CLASSES
Product classes
1. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity)
2. Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft3
capacity)
3. Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less
than 4.4 ft3 capacity)
4. Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater
capacity)
5. Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3
capacity)
6. Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less
than 4.4 ft3 capacity)
7. Ventless Electric, Combination WasherDryer
DOE further notes that product classes
established through EPCA’s direct final
rule authority are not subject to the
criteria specified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)
for establishing product classes.
However, in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4)—which is applicable to
direct final rules—DOE has concluded
that the standards adopted in this direct
final rule will not result in the
unavailability in any covered product
type (or class) of performance
characteristics, features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as those generally
available in the United States
currently.35 Additionally, DOE notes
that DOE’s findings in this regard are
discussed in detail in section V.B.4 of
this document.
2. Technology Options
In this direct final rule, DOE
considered the technology options listed
in Table IV.2, consistent with the table
of technology options presented in the
August 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 51734.
Chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final
35 EPCA specifies that DOE may not prescribe an
amended or new standard if the Secretary finds
(and publishes such finding) that interested persons
have established by a preponderance of the
evidence that the standard is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States in any covered
product type (or class) of performance
characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United
States at the time of the Secretary’s finding. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18178
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
rule includes a detailed list and
descriptions of all technology options
identified for consumer clothes dryers.
As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for
this direct final rule, DOE has
performed market research and
evaluated available consumer clothes
dryers to assess existing technology
options to improve efficiency. The
results of this research are discussed in
chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final
rule. DOE notes that it did not receive
any comments regarding the technology
options analyzed in the August 2022
NOPR.
TABLE IV.2—DIRECT FINAL RULE ANALYSIS: TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Dryer control or drum upgrades:
Improved termination
Increased insulation
Modified operating conditions
Improved air circulation
Improved drum design
Methods of Exhaust Heat Recovery (Vented Models Only):
Recycle exhaust heat
Inlet air preheat
Inlet air preheat, condensing mode
Moisture Removal Options:
Heat pump, electric only
Thermoelectric heating, electric only
Microwave, electric only
Modulating heat
Indirect heating
RF drying, electric only
Ultrasonic drying, electric only
Component Improvements:
Improved motor efficiency
Improved fan efficiency
Standby Power Improvements:
Transformerless power supply with auto-powerdown
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following screening
criteria to determine which technology
options are suitable for further
consideration in an energy conservation
standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility.
Technologies that are not incorporated
in commercial products or in
commercially viable, existing prototypes
will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service. If it is determined
that mass production of a technology in
commercial products and reliable
installation and servicing of the
technology could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the projected
compliance date of the standard, then
that technology will not be considered
further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a
technology is determined to have a
significant adverse impact on the utility
of the product to subgroups of
consumers or result in the unavailability
of any covered product type with
performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the
same as products generally available in
the United States at the time, it will not
be considered further.
(4) Safety of technologies. If it is
determined that a technology would
have significant adverse impacts on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
health or safety, it will not be
considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary
technologies. If a technology has
proprietary protection and represents a
unique pathway to achieving a given
efficiency level, it will not be
considered further, due to the potential
for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In sum, if DOE determines that a
technology, or a combination of
technologies, fails to meet one or more
of the listed five criteria, it will be
excluded from further consideration in
the engineering analysis. The reasons
for eliminating any technology are
discussed in the following sections.
The subsequent sections include
DOE’s evaluation of each technology
option against the screening analysis
criteria, and whether DOE determined
that a technology option should be
excluded (‘‘screened out’’) based on the
screening criteria.
1. Screened Out Technologies
In conducting the screening analysis
for this direct final rule, DOE
considered comments it had received in
response to the screening analysis
conducted for the August 2022 NOPR.
a. Thermoelectric Heating, Electric Only
DOE notes that thermoelectric heating
clothes dryers are still undergoing
preliminary research, including at Oak
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Ridge National Laboratory (‘‘ORNL’’).
While ORNL’s test results of a
preliminary prototype have shown the
potential for improved efficiency, ORNL
indicated that the initial prototype
design produced longer-than-desired
drying times due to direct-contact heat
transfer limitations via the drum
surface. ORNL subsequently developed
another prototype that added pumped
secondary water loops that transferred
heat from the thermoelectric modules to
the process air via air-to-water heat
exchangers to further improve efficiency
and minimize cycle length. ORNL’s
testing indicated efficiency and cycle
times for this prototype that are
approximately equivalent to those of
vapor compression heat pump clothes
dryers.36 Because the research for such
a thermoelectric heating clothes dryer
that produces energy savings and meets
consumer expectations for drying cycle
time is still in the prototype stage, DOE
determined that this technology option
would not be practicable to
manufacture, install, and service on a
scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the projected
compliance date of any new or amended
consumer clothes dryer standards, and
did not consider it for further analysis.
36 Patel, V., Boudreaux, P., and Gluesenkamp, K.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Validated Model of
a Thermoelectric Heat Pump Clothes Dryer Using
Secondary Pumped Loops. Applied Thermal
Engineering, Volume 184, February 5, 2021.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
b. Microwave, Electric Only
Due to the large energy savings
associated with microwave drying, this
technology was the subject of a
multiyear development effort at the
Electric Power Research Institute
(‘‘EPRI’’) in the mid-1990s.37 At least
one major manufacturer—Whirlpool—
developed a countertop-scale version of
such a product as recently as 2002,38 but
to date this technology has not been
successfully commercialized.
Microwave drying introduces
significant technical and safety issues
with potential arcing from metallic
objects in the fabric load, including
zippers, buttons, or ‘‘stray’’ items such
as coins. While efforts have been made
to mitigate the conditions that are
favorable to arcing or to detect incipient
arcing and terminate the cycle, the
possibility of fabric damage cannot be
completely eliminated.39 In addition to
those consumer utility impacts, these
conditions can also pose a safety hazard.
For these reasons, microwave drying
was not considered further for analysis.
c. Indirect Heating
Indirect heating would be viable only
in residences that use a hydronic
heating system. Also, in order to derive
clothes dryer heat energy from a home’s
heating system, significant plumbing
work would be required to circulate
heated water through a heat exchanger
in the clothes dryer. Therefore, this
technology option does not meet the
criterion of practicability to install on a
scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the effective date
of any new standard and was not
considered for further analysis.
d. RF Drying, Electric Only
CoolDry, LLC (‘‘CoolDry’’) developed
an RF clothes dryer prototype, claiming
an efficiency of 90 percent, compared to
50 percent for conventional clothes
dryers.40 CoolDry stated that its RF
drying technology operates at lower
temperatures than do conventional
clothes dryers and, because the transfer
of energy to clothes is not dependent on
convective heat transfer, the RF clothes
dryer requires less tumbling and
subsequently consumes less energy for
drum rotation than a conventional
clothes dryer. Because this technology
was in the prototype stage at the time it
was initially considered and the
company is no longer in business,
research and development is unlikely to
be ongoing. Therefore, DOE determined
that this technology option would not
be practicable to manufacture, install,
and service on a scale necessary to serve
the relevant market at the time of the
projected compliance date of any new or
amended consumer clothes dryer
standards and did not consider it for
further analysis.
e. Ultrasonic Drying, Electric Only
Researchers at ORNL have developed
an ultrasonic drying prototype that uses
piezoelectric transducers to separate
water from clothes through water
cavitation produced by ultrasonic
vibrations. According to their research,
18179
the energy imparted to the water must
overcome surface tension in order to
break the water into droplets, but this
energy is substantially less than the
latent heat of vaporization of water,
which is the primary thermodynamic
barrier for conventional evaporation
drying. The ORNL researchers
anticipate that ultrasonic drying
technology will result in an energy
factor 41 of greater than 10 and a drying
time of less than 20 minutes.42 Because
this technology is still in the prototype
stage, however, DOE determined that
this technology option would not be
practicable to manufacture, install, and
service on a scale necessary to serve the
relevant market at the time of the
projected compliance date of any new or
amended consumer clothes dryer
standards and did not consider it for
further analysis.
DOE did not receive any comments in
response to the August 2022 NOPR
regarding these screened out technology
options, and for the reasons discussed,
screened out the same technologies for
this direct final rule analysis.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology,
DOE tentatively concludes that all of the
other identified technologies listed in
section IV.A.2 of this document met all
screening criteria to be examined further
as design options in DOE’s direct final
rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not
screen out the following technology
options:
TABLE IV.3—RETAINED DESIGN OPTIONS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Dryer Control or Drum Upgrades:
Improved termination
Modified operating conditions
Improved air circulation
Increased insulation
Improved drum design
Methods of Exhaust Heat Recovery (vented models only):
Recycle exhaust heat
Inlet air preheat
Inlet air preheat, condensing mode
Moisture Removal Options:
Heat pump, electric only
Modulating heat
Component Improvements:
Improved motor efficiency
Improved fan efficiency
Standby Power Improvements:
Transformerless Power Supply with Auto-Powerdown
37 S. Ashley. 1998. ‘‘Energy-Efficient
Appliances,’’ Mechanical Engineering Magazine,
March 1998, pp. 94–97.
38 E. Spagat. 2002. ‘‘Whirlpool Goes Portable to
Sell Dryers to Gen Y,’’ Wall Street Journal, June 4,
2002.
39 J.F. Gerling. 2003. ‘‘Microwave Clothes
Drying—Technical Solutions to Fundamental
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
Challenges,’’ Appliance Magazine, April 2003, p.
120.
40 Cool Dry did not specify the metric or test
method used to determine the efficiency of its
prototype.
41 This energy factor incorporates only active
mode energy use and not standby mode and off
mode energy use.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
42 Momen, A. Ultrasonic Clothes Dryer: 2016
Building Technologies Office Peer Review. 2016.
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, in partnership with the
University of Florida and General Electric, p. 2.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18180
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
DOE determined that these
technology options are technologically
feasible because they are being used or
have previously been used in
commercially available products or
working prototypes. DOE also finds that
all of the remaining technology options
meet the other screening criteria (i.e.,
practicable to manufacture, install, and
service and do not result in adverse
impacts on consumer utility, product
availability, health, or safety). For
additional details, see chapter 4 of the
direct final rule TSD.
As previously discussed, on February
14, 2024, DOE received a second joint
statement from the same group of
stakeholders that submitted the Joint
Agreement in which the signatories
reaffirmed the standards recommended
in the Joint Agreement.43 In particular,
the letter states that the joint
stakeholders do not anticipate the
recommended standards will negatively
affect features or performance.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering
analysis is to establish the relationship
between the efficiency and cost of
consumer clothes dryers. There are two
elements to consider in the engineering
analysis: the selection of efficiency
levels to analyze (i.e., the efficiency
analysis) and the determination of
product cost at each efficiency level
(i.e., the cost analysis). In determining
the performance of higher efficiency
products, DOE considers technologies
and design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis.
For each product class, DOE estimates
the baseline cost, as well as the
incremental cost for the product/
equipment at efficiency levels above the
baseline. The output of the engineering
analysis is a set of cost-efficiency
‘‘curves’’ that are used in downstream
analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses
and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two
approaches to develop energy efficiency
levels for the engineering analysis: (1)
relying on observed efficiency levels in
the market (i.e., the efficiency-level
approach), or (2) determining the
incremental efficiency improvements
associated with incorporating specific
design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the
efficiency-level approach, the efficiency
levels established for the analysis are
determined based on the market
43 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0058-0058.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
distribution of existing products (in
other words, based on the range of
efficiencies and efficiency-level
‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the
market). Using the design-option
approach, the efficiency levels
established for the analysis are
determined through detailed
engineering calculations and/or
computer simulations of the efficiency
improvements from implementing
specific design options that have been
identified in the technology assessment.
DOE may also rely on a combination of
these two approaches. For example, the
efficiency-level approach (based on
actual products on the market) may be
extended using the design-option
approach to interpolate to define ‘‘gap
fill’’ levels (to bridge large gaps between
other identified efficiency levels) and/or
to extrapolate to the ‘‘max-tech’’ level
(particularly in cases where the ‘‘maxtech’’ level exceeds the maximum
efficiency level currently available on
the market).
For this direct final rule, DOE used an
efficiency-level approach,
supplemented with reverse engineering.
This approach involved first testing and
then physically disassembling a
representative sample of commercially
available products, reviewing publicly
available cost information, and
modeling equipment cost. From this
information and through the reverse
engineering process, DOE estimated the
manufacturer production costs
(‘‘MPCs’’) for a range of products
currently available on the market,
considering the design options and the
steps manufacturers would likely take to
reach a certain efficiency level. As part
of this analysis, DOE included test units
that represent baseline models, newly
introduced units on the market, units
with unique configurations, and units
with technologies as observed in the
technology assessment. The efficiency
levels analyzed as part of this
engineering analysis are attainable using
commercially available clothes dryer
technologies, or technologies that have
been demonstrated in working
prototypes.
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each product/equipment class,
DOE generally selects a baseline model
as a reference point for each class, and
measures changes resulting from
potential energy conservation standards
against the baseline. The baseline model
in each product/equipment class
represents the characteristics of a
product/equipment typical of that class
(e.g., capacity, physical size). Generally,
a baseline model is one that just meets
current energy conservation standards,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
or, if no standards are in place, the
baseline is typically the most common
or least efficient unit on the market.
The baseline clothes dryer efficiency
levels for this direct final rule differ
from the existing energy conservation
standards that were established in the
2011 rulemaking analysis primarily due
to the difference between the thencurrent appendix D1, which DOE used
to evaluate products in the previous
rulemaking, and the present version of
appendix D2, established in the October
2021 TP Final Rule and which DOE
used as the basis for this analysis.
Appendix D2 includes test methods that
more accurately measure the effects of
automatic cycle termination and that
may result in differences in the total
measured energy consumption of the
test cycle as compared to the test
methods in appendix D1. Specifically,
for automatic termination control
dryers, appendix D2 requires a lower
FMC of the test load and does not rely
on a field use factor to account for the
over-drying energy consumption,
instead requiring that the automatic
termination drying program run to the
end of the cycle. Additionally, appendix
D2 contains instructions for the testing
of timer dryers, which include a lower
FMC of the test load as compared to the
version of appendix D1 used for the
2011 rulemaking analysis.
For the engineering analysis, DOE
began by identifying the efficiency level
corresponding to the Federal minimum
energy conservation standards for each
product class. Due to the test procedure
changes adopted in the October 2021
Final Rule, DOE determined the
baseline efficiency level representative
of minimally compliant products when
tested under appendix D2. To identify
the appendix D2 baseline levels, DOE
tested 22 models that were certified as
minimally compliant with the current
energy conservation standards, from
across all product classes. Because
certified performance data are not
available for models on the market
tested in accordance with both
appendix D1 and appendix D2, DOE
tested each basic model in its test
sample in accordance with appendix D1
and appendix D2 and used the test
values for appendix D2 to determine the
baseline models in support of this
engineering analysis. Due to the
differences in the two test procedures
previously described, the baseline
CEFD2 measured using appendix D2 is
numerically lower for each product
class than the corresponding CEFD1
value in the current energy conservation
standards, though that does not indicate
a lower efficiency. The test procedure
differences drive the lower baseline
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
CEFD2 values and do not represent a
lower efficiency or backsliding.
With regard to the vented gas compact
product class, DOE is unaware of any
currently available commercial products
that fall within the vented gas compact
product class. To determine the baseline
level for this product class, DOE
analyzed a vented gas compact-size
model that was previously available on
the market prior to the effective date of
the current energy conservation. DOE’s
previous testing of that model—which
utilized electromechanical controls—
suggests that the model would not be
compliant with the existing standards.
DOE expects that manufacturers would
implement electronic controls as a
design option to produce vented gas
compact clothes dryers that minimally
comply with the existing standard. DOE
determined the efficiency performance
that would be achieved through the
addition of electronic controls by
applying the same relative efficiency
improvement observed with the
implementation of electronic controls
for standard-size vented gas clothes
dryers, as shown in Table IV.8 in
section IV.C.1.b of this document. The
18181
resulting estimated level of baseline
performance for the vented gas compact
product class is consistent with the
efficiency level recommended by the
Joint Agreement for this product class.
The baseline efficiency levels
considered for this analysis are
presented along with the current
standards in Table IV.4 and are
discussed in more detail in chapter 5 of
the direct final rule TSD. The baseline
values are the same as those proposed
in the August 2022 NOPR, except for the
vented gas compact product class as
discussed.
TABLE IV.4—DIRECT FINAL RULE CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYER BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS
CEFD1
(lb/kWh)
Product class
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ...................................................................................................
(ii) Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ........................................................................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ..........................................................................
(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 cubic ft3 or greater capacity) ................................................................................
(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ............................................................................................
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ........................................................................
(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer .................................................................................................
3.73
3.61
3.27
3.30
3.30
2.55
2.08
CEFD2
(lb/kWh) *
2.20
2.36
2.00
2.00
2.02
2.03
2.27
* As discussed, the baseline CEFD2 values represent differences in test procedure between appendix D1 and appendix D2 and do not constitute backsliding. CEFD2 baseline efficiency levels as measured under appendix D2 account for differences in the effectiveness of automatic
cycle termination. Manufacturers implement automatic termination in a variety of ways, which will impact the representations as measured under
appendix D2 and result in a range of possible CEFD2 values, as compared to the CEFD1 values in the existing Federal standards.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
b. Incremental Efficiency Levels
DOE developed incremental
efficiency levels by reviewing products
currently available on the market and by
testing and reverse engineering products
in the DOE test sample in support of the
direct final rule. For each product class,
DOE analyzed several efficiency levels
and determined the incremental MPC at
each of these levels. DOE initially
reviewed data in DOE’s Compliance
Certification Database (‘‘CCD’’) to
evaluate the range of efficiencies for
consumer clothes dryers currently
available on the market. As discussed in
chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD,
non-ENERGY STAR-qualified products
(i.e., generally units with lower-rated
efficiencies) are typically tested using
appendix D1, while ENERGY STARqualified products are required to be
tested using appendix D2. As a result,
DOE conducted testing on a
representative sample of non-ENERGY
STAR-qualified products using
appendix D2 to determine appropriate
initial incremental efficiency levels for
each product class. DOE observed that
while electronic controls are typically
implemented with other design options
in this analysis, the improved automatic
termination precision offered by
switching to electronic controls
contributed significantly to an increase
in efficiency. This efficiency gain
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
informed the first incremental efficiency
levels for most product classes and was
noted simply as electronic controls in
the design options listed in the tables
later in this section. The design options
associated with higher efficiency levels
were subsequently distinguished
according to specific design options
DOE found manufacturers used to meet
these higher efficiencies. As part of
DOE’s analysis, the maximum available
efficiency level is the highest efficiency
unit currently available on the market.
DOE also defines a ‘‘max-tech’’
efficiency level to represent the
maximum possible efficiency for a given
product.
For the vented gas compact product
class, no units were available on the
market at the time of the analysis whose
rated value exceeded the baseline level.
Given recent market trends, DOE does
not have reason to expect manufacturers
to re-introduce compact-size vented gas
clothes dryers to the market, regardless
of amendments to energy conservation
standards. Accordingly, DOE did not
consider any higher efficiency levels for
this product class.
In defining the incremental efficiency
levels for the other product classes for
this direct final rule, DOE considered
comments it had received in response to
the incremental efficiency levels
proposed in the August 2022 NOPR,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
including several from commenters who
support the Joint Agreement.
The CA IOUs supported DOE’s
decision to adopt the updated max-tech
levels as indicative of the growth and
maturity of heat pump technologies for
vented and ventless products. The CA
IOUs further commented that adopting
the max-tech levels sets a key precedent
for subsequent DOE energy efficiency
and non-DOE rulemakings to represent
the true potential of a product class.
(California IOUs, No. 50 at pp. 4–5)
AHAM and Whirlpool disagreed with
DOE’s tentative determination that the
proposed standards in the August 2022
NOPR would allow for
electromechanical controls. AHAM and
Whirlpool commented that electronic
controls are required to enable the
technology options for the proposed
TSL. Whirlpool further commented that
electromechanical control dryers are not
sophisticated enough to enable the other
technology options that DOE described
in the August 2022 NOPR analysis and
therefore could not be used effectively
with the appendix D2 test procedure.
Whirlpool stated that DOE’s NOPR
analysis missed several key aspects
where utility and performance could be
lessened in order to meet the proposed
standard levels. Whirlpool noted that
the average CEF score of the five tested
units in the vented electric standard
product class with electromechanical
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
18182
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
controls in the August 2022 NOPR
analysis is 2.64 lb/kWh, over 30-percent
lower than the proposed standard.
AHAM stated that electromechanical
controls have consumer utility in that
they are easy to use and reduce the
overall costs associated with the
product, and that requiring electronic
controls would result in investment
costs for manufacturers and increased
purchase prices for consumers. AHAM
requested that DOE retain
electromechanical controls among a
consumer’s purchase options as,
according to AHAM, they are a desirable
feature for reliability, they provide
reduced appliance cost among
consumers, and their elimination from
the market would likely cause
consumers to postpone the purchase of
new dryers, in turn increasing the total
national energy consumption.
Whirlpool stated concern regarding a
forced regulatory phaseout of
electromechanical controls because they
are incorporated in a popular and
affordable segment of consumer clothes
dryers, and noted that although some
electronic controls could be ‘‘hidden’’
from the consumer, there could be some
lost utility from the easy and low-cost
repairability of electromechanical
control dryers. (AHAM, No. 46 at pp. 5,
10; Whirlpool, No. 53 at pp. 3–4)
DOE is not aware of reliability issues
associated with the implementation of
electronic controls relative to
electromechanical controls. However,
DOE acknowledges that a transition
from electromechanical controls to
electronic controls may require
manufacturer investment costs to
redesign products and would likely
increase purchase price for consumers,
as captured in the incremental costs
estimated and presented in this direct
final rule analysis. Based on its analysis
for this direct final rule, DOE believes
that component costs associated with
the implementation of electronic
controls are lower than those estimated
in the August 2022 NOPR analysis,
which is reflected in the updated MPCs
for the efficiency levels that entail a
shift to electronic controls. These costs
are reflected in the MPCs, which are the
basis for the LCC and PBP analyses, in
which consumer impacts related to
increased purchase price and repair and
maintenance costs are considered.
Additionally, DOE reevaluated repair
costs and accordingly implemented
higher repair costs associated with
electronic controls in this direct final
rule analysis, consistent with
Whirlpool’s comments. See section IV.F
of this document and chapter 8 of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
direct final rule TSD for additional
details.
Regarding the concern that clothes
dryers equipped with electromechanical
controls could not be tested under
appendix D2, DOE notes that its test
sample shows that requiring the use of
the appendix D2 test procedure will not
preclude the use of electromechanical
controls. As discussed in chapter 5 of
the direct final rule TSD, DOE tested
baseline models with electromechanical
controls under appendix D2, where
available. For the ventless electric
compact (240V) product class and the
ventless electric combination washerdryer product class, there were no
baseline models identified with
electromechanical controls; however,
the same efficiency-level approach was
taken to establish the efficiency-level
structures for these product classes. The
baseline efficiency levels in this direct
final rule represent a minimally
compliant, basic-construction consumer
clothes dryer on the market, such as a
dryer with electromechanical controls,
and were set according to the lowest
tested values under appendix D2 in
each product class. As Whirlpool noted,
the average CEF score of the five tested
units in the vented electric standard
product class with electromechanical
controls was significantly lower than
the proposed standard, further
indicating the efficiency savings
associated with a transition to a
combination of electronic controls and
higher design options. Regarding the
concern that the proposed amended
standards would require the
implementation of electronic controls,
DOE reiterates that although it expects
that electronic controls are most likely
to be used to achieve higher efficiency
levels, and a review of ENERGY STARqualified products suggests increased
prevalent use of electronic controls,
manufacturers are not required to
implement these specific design options
to meet amended standards. DOE
therefore does not expect the amended
standards to preclude electromechanical
controls should manufacturers choose to
implement them.
Regarding AHAM and Whirlpool’s
comments that the required
implementation of electronic controls to
reach efficiency levels above the
existing standard may result in a loss of
consumer utility associated with the
traditional user interface utilizing
electromechanical controls, DOE’s
testing and analysis of models currently
on the market confirms Whirlpool’s
statement that electronic controls may
be ‘‘hidden’’ from consumers who prefer
a more traditional user interface. This
may be accomplished by implementing
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
physical dials for consumer use that in
turn manipulate the electronic controls
in order to achieve the efficiency
savings associated with electronic
controls while providing the user
experience of electromechanical
controls. Therefore, even if electronic
controls are utilized, DOE does not
expect a loss in consumer utility
associated with the use of
electromechanical controls. DOE notes
that AHAM recommended the proposed
efficiency levels in the Joint Agreement
on behalf of its members, including
Whirlpool, in the Joint Agreement,
which includes efficiency levels that
can be achieved with the
implementation of electronic controls.
Whirlpool stated that there may be
greater visibility and scrutiny of drying
times associated with electronic control
clothes dryers among consumers, as
electromechanical control dryers do not
display drying times. According to
Whirlpool, consumers may believe they
are losing control of their dryers in a
way that results in additional energy
consumption, and DOE should account
for this possible behavioral shift and
lost energy savings. (Whirlpool, No. 53
at p. 7)
DOE is not aware of any data
suggesting that the behavior of
consumers of with clothes dryers
utilizing electronic controls results in
greater energy use than for consumers
with clothes dryers utilizing
electromechanical controls and notes
that electronic controls are typically
more efficient than electromechanical
controls. As previously noted,
manufacturers currently provide
electronic controls that provide the
experience of electromechanical
controls through the use of dials which
would avoid any loss in consumer
utility.
GEA stated that while the appendix
D2 test procedure requires use of the
‘‘normal’’ or ’’medium’’ dryness setting
for the clothes dryer test cycle, most
labs, according to GEA, understand the
‘‘optimum’’ dryness setting to be the
‘‘normal’’ setting for appendix D2. GEA
stated that it provides further clarity to
consumers and test labs in the use and
care manual for products with an
‘‘optimum’’ dryness setting by
specifying that optimum is the dryness
setting to use for most clothes when
running the ‘‘cottons’’ cycle (the drying
cycle recommended for certain
consumer clothes dryers manufactured
by GEA for drying cotton). Therefore,
based on the cycle settings provided by
the additional test information DOE
published on October 13, 2022, and
information provided by Guidehouse to
GEA under a non-disclosure agreement,
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
GEA stated that DOE incorrectly tested
two models in its test sample and urged
DOE to either rerun its testing, exclude
the models in question from its analysis,
or accept the data provided by GEA and
adjust its savings model. (GEA, No. 49
at pp. 2–3)
DOE notes that the baseline units GEA
referenced are certified under appendix
D1, and although these units were not
originally intended to be tested under
the appendix D2 test procedure, DOE
tested them using the appropriate cycle
settings under the appendix D2 test
procedure to support the engineering
analysis. These settings were different
than the ‘‘optimum’’ dryness setting
specified in the use and care manual for
these particular units. Although GEA
referred to specific cycle settings for
consumer use, DOE notes that this
instruction for cycle settings does not
supersede the requirements of the
appendix D2 test procedure.
Additionally, DOE notes that the test
cycle settings used were within the
range anticipated and not expressly
warned against by the owner’s manual
or use and care manual. Therefore, DOE
maintains that the correct cycle settings
were used to test the units in question.
Whirlpool stated that DOE should
have presented the cycle times before
and after wrinkle prevention mode was
enabled for models in the test sample
that had wrinkle prevention mode on by
default. Whirlpool further stated that
models reported in the data had
extremely long cycle times, between 88
and 319 minutes, but that such times
were distorted due to testing with
wrinkle protection mode enabled.
Additionally, Whirlpool stated that
testing of consumer clothes dryers with
wrinkle prevention mode enabled by
default may have distorted some of the
tested settings and the resulting CEF
scores because wrinkle prevention
results in additional cycle time of
continuous tumbling after the heating
element has been turned off. Whirlpool
stated that, this results in an energy
penalty as the additional cycle time
potentially allows for moisture
absorption in the test load to the point
of failing to meet the required FMC of
2 percent, and therefore a retest is
required using the highest dryness level
setting associated with more energy
consumption and thus a lower average
measured CEF. Whirlpool further stated
that wrinkle prevention mode does not
produce an accurate comparison of
average cycle times and CEF scores of
these dryers compared to other dryers
that do not have wrinkle prevention
modes enabled by default, and DOE
should have also recorded the CEF
scores, FMC, and drying times of these
models before they were allowed to
enter wrinkle prevention mode.
Whirlpool stated that this data should
have been used to inform comparisons
between dryers and the development of
baseline efficiency levels. Whirlpool
stated that if these dryers were designed
to the appendix D2 test procedure,
wrinkle prevention mode would likely
not have been enabled by default.
(Whirlpool, No. 53 at pp. 9–10)
In the August 2013 TP Final Rule,
DOE clarified that if a clothes dryer is
equipped with a wrinkle prevention
mode that is activated by default in the
18183
as-shipped position, the cycle shall be
considered complete after the end of the
wrinkle prevention mode. 76 FR 49607,
49623–49624. Although wrinkle
prevention mode may have been
disabled had the test units been
designed for appendix D2 testing, DOE
stated previously that accurate testing of
existing baseline units according to the
appendix D2 test procedure was
essential for the analysis, including the
use of optional cycle settings that are
enabled by default and that do not affect
the program, temperature, or dryness
settings. The test procedure in appendix
D2 therefore requires that testing
include wrinkle prevention mode if it is
enabled by default. DOE maintains, as it
was unable to predict or assume the
cycle settings Whirlpool would have
selected had the test units been
designed for appendix D2 testing, that
the test units in question were properly
tested in accordance with appendix D2
using the correct cycle settings
consistent with the DOE test procedure.
Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD
discusses the incremental efficiency
levels for each of the product classes in
this analysis. The revised CEFD2
efficiency levels for each product class
are shown below in Table IV.5 through
Table IV.10, along with the current
energy conservation standards in CEFD1
for comparison. As discussed in section
IV.C.1.a of this document, the baseline
CEFD2 values estimated for the
preliminary analysis are lower than the
current CEFD1 values in the energy
conservation standards due to the
differences in testing between appendix
D1 and appendix D2.
TABLE IV.5—DIRECT FINAL RULE ANALYSIS: ELECTRIC STANDARD EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Efficiency level
(‘‘EL’’)
Design option
Current
standard
CEFD1
(lb/kWh)
Baseline ....................
1 ................................
2 ................................
3 ................................
4 ................................
5 ................................
6 ................................
7 ................................
Baseline (Electromechanical Controls) .............................................................................
Baseline + Electronic Controls .........................................................................................
EL1 + Optimized Heating System ....................................................................................
EL2 + More Advanced Automatic Termination Control System ......................................
EL3 + Modulating (2-Stage) Heat ....................................................................................
EL4 + Inlet Air Preheat .....................................................................................................
Hybrid Heat Pump Dryer (Additional Resistance Heater) ................................................
Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech) ..........................................................................................
3.73
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
DFR CEFD2
(lb/kWh) *
2.20
2.68
3.04
3.27
3.93
4.21
5.20
44 7.39
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
* As discussed above, the baseline CEFD2 values represent differences in test procedure between appendix D1 and appendix D2 and do not
constitute backsliding.
44 DOE is aware of consumer clothes dryers in the
electric standard product class that perform at
higher efficiencies than the proposed max-tech
level, but those models are not representative of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
typical capacity in the electric standard product
class. Therefore, based on the certified performance
of those models and additional investigative testing,
DOE determined a representative max-tech
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
efficiency for the electric standard product class
that reflects an appropriate, representative unit
capacity. See chapter 5 of the final rule TSD for
more information.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18184
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV.6—DIRECT FINAL RULE ANALYSIS: ELECTRIC COMPACT (120V)—EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Efficiency level
Design option
Current
standard
CEFD1
(lb/kWh)
Baseline ....................
1 ................................
2 ................................
3 ................................
4 ................................
5 ................................
6 ................................
Baseline (Electromechanical Controls) .............................................................................
Baseline + Electronic Controls .........................................................................................
EL1 + Optimized Heating System ....................................................................................
EL2 + More Advanced Automatic Termination Control System ......................................
EL3 + Modulating (2-Stage) Heat ....................................................................................
EL4 + Inlet Air Preheat .....................................................................................................
Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech) ..........................................................................................
3.61
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
DFR CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
2.36
3.15
3.35
4.28
4.33
4.63
6.37
TABLE IV.7—DIRECT FINAL RULE ANALYSIS: VENTED ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Efficiency level
Design option
Current
standard
CEFD1
(lb/kWh)
Baseline ....................
1 ................................
2 ................................
3 ................................
4 ................................
5 ................................
6 ................................
Baseline (Electromechanical Controls) .............................................................................
Baseline + Electronic Controls .........................................................................................
EL1 + Optimized Heating System ....................................................................................
EL2 + More Advanced Automatic Termination Control System ......................................
EL3 + Modulating (2-Stage) Heat ....................................................................................
EL4 + Inlet Air Preheat .....................................................................................................
Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech) ..........................................................................................
3.27
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
DFR CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
2.00
2.44
2.76
3.30
3.57
3.82
3.91
TABLE IV.8—DIRECT FINAL RULE ANALYSIS: VENTED GAS STANDARD EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Current
standard
CEFD1
(lb/kWh) 45
Efficiency level
Design option
Baseline ....................
1 ................................
2 ................................
Baseline (Electromechanical Controls) .............................................................................
Baseline + Electronic Controls .........................................................................................
EL1 + Optimized Heating System and More Advanced Automatic Termination Control
System.
EL2 + Modulating (2-Stage) Heat ....................................................................................
EL3 + Inlet Air Preheat (Max-Tech) .................................................................................
3 ................................
4 ................................
DFR CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
3.30
........................
........................
2.00
2.44
3.00
........................
........................
3.48
3.83
TABLE IV.9—DIRECT FINAL RULE ANALYSIS: VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Efficiency level
Design option
Current
standard
CEFD1
(lb/kWh)
Baseline ....................
1 ................................
2 ................................
Baseline (Electronic Controls) ..........................................................................................
Baseline + More Advanced Automatic Termination Control System ...............................
Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech) ..........................................................................................
2.55
........................
........................
DFR CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
2.03
2.68
6.80
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
TABLE IV.10—DIRECT FINAL RULE ANALYSIS: VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMBINATION WASHER-DRYER EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Efficiency level
Design option
Current
standard
CEFD1
(lb/kWh)
Baseline ....................
1 ................................
2 ................................
Baseline (Electronic Controls) ..........................................................................................
Baseline + High-Speed Spin ............................................................................................
Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech) ..........................................................................................
2.08
........................
........................
45 The current standard does not distinguish a
separate product class for compact-size gas
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
consumer clothes dryers. As such, the current
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
DFR CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
standard may apply to all gas consumer clothes
dryers.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
2.27
2.33
4.01
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
2. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the
engineering analysis is conducted using
one or a combination of cost
approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors,
including the availability and reliability
of public information, characteristics of
the regulated product, and the
availability and timeliness of
purchasing the product on the market.
The cost approaches are summarized as
follows:
• Physical teardowns: Under this
approach, DOE physically dismantles a
commercially available product,
component by component, to develop a
detailed bill of materials for the product.
• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of
physically deconstructing a product,
DOE identifies each component using
parts diagrams (available from
manufacturer websites or appliance
repair websites, for example) to develop
the bill of materials for the product.
• Price surveys: If neither a physical
nor catalog teardown is feasible (for
example, for tightly integrated products
such as fluorescent lamps, which are
infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical
(e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE
conducts price surveys using publicly
available pricing data published on
major online retailer websites and/or by
soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the present case, DOE conducted
the analysis using physical product
teardowns to determine the baseline
MPC for each product class as outlined
in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.
DOE developed the cost-efficiency
relationships for each product class as
discussed in section IV.C.3 of this
document. DOE developed incremental
MPCs based on product teardowns and
manufacturing cost modeling of the
expected design changes at each
efficiency level. DOE observed that the
basic product designs of vented electric
and vented gas clothes dryers are
similar except for the heating system.
DOE also observed that the technology
designs of standard-size and compactsize consumer clothes dryers are similar
as well, simply scaled in size. As a
result, in the absence of models
available on the market at certain
18185
efficiency levels for certain product
classes, DOE estimated the incremental
MPC for these based on the same design
changes observed for the electric
standard product class. DOE updated
the cost-efficiency analysis from the
preliminary analysis by updating the
costs of raw materials and purchased
components, as well as updating costs
for manufacturing equipment, labor, and
depreciation. DOE also used
information from the teardown of units
in the updated test sample to inform
updates to the cost-efficiency analysis.
Not all units in the updated test sample
were torn down; DOE focused on units
recently introduced in the market, units
with unique configuration, and units
with technologies that were not
available at the time of the preliminary
analysis to better inform the costs
associated with particular product
classes and design options.
The resulting bill of materials
provides the basis for the MPC estimates
in this direct final rule. The baseline
MPCs for each consumer clothes dryer
product class are listed in Table IV.11,
with all costs presented in 2022 dollars.
TABLE IV.11—DIRECT FINAL RULE ANALYSIS: CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYER BASELINE MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION
COSTS
Baseline MPC
(2022$)
Product class
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (ft3) or greater capacity) ............................................................................................................
(ii) Electric, Compact (120 volts (V)) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ........................................................................................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ......................................................................................................
(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 cubic ft3 or greater capacity) ............................................................................................................
(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ........................................................................................................................
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ....................................................................................................
(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer .............................................................................................................................
To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE
applies a multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting
manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) is
the price at which the manufacturer
distributes a unit into commerce. DOE
developed an average manufacturer
markup by examining the annual
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘SEC’’) 10–K reports filed by publicly
traded manufacturers primarily engaged
in appliance manufacturing and whose
combined product range includes
consumer clothes dryers.46 See section
IV.J.2.d of this document and chapter 12
of the direct final rule TSD for
additional information on the
manufacturer markup.
46 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval
(‘‘EDGAR’’) system. Available at www.sec.gov/
edgar/search/ (last accessed April 21, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
The results of the engineering analysis
are presented as cost-efficiency data for
each of the efficiency levels for each of
the product classes that were analyzed,
as well as those extrapolated from a
product class with similar features. DOE
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
268.90
284.06
284.91
303.39
329.94
453.09
611.19
developed estimates of MPCs for each
unit in the teardown sample to develop
a comprehensive set of incremental
MPCs (i.e., the additional costs
manufacturers would likely incur by
producing consumer clothes dryers at
each efficiency level compared to the
baseline).
The resulting incremental MPCs from
this analysis are provided in Table IV.12
through Table IV.17. See chapter 5 of
the direct final rule TSD for additional
detail on the engineering analysis.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18186
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV.12—DIRECT FINAL RULE ANALYSIS: ELECTRIC STANDARD INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS
Efficiency level
Design option
Incremental
MPC
(2022$)
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
5 .....................................
6 .....................................
7 .....................................
Baseline (Electromechanical Controls) ...................................................................................................
Baseline + Electronic Controls ................................................................................................................
EL1 + Optimized Heating System ...........................................................................................................
EL2 + More Advanced Automatic Termination Control System .............................................................
EL3 + Modulating (2-Stage) Heat ...........................................................................................................
EL4 + Inlet Air Preheat ...........................................................................................................................
Hybrid Heat Pump Dryer (Additional Resistive Heater) .........................................................................
Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech) .................................................................................................................
........................
5.60
8.60
9.15
15.19
60.11
231.01
240.85
TABLE IV.13—DIRECT FINAL RULE ANALYSIS: ELECTRIC COMPACT (120V) INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION
COSTS
Efficiency level
Design option
Incremental
MPC
(2022$)
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
5 .....................................
6 .....................................
Baseline (Electromechanical Controls) ...................................................................................................
Baseline + Electronic Controls ................................................................................................................
EL1 + Optimized Heating System ...........................................................................................................
EL2 + More Advanced Automatic Termination Control System .............................................................
EL3 + Modulating (2-Stage) Heat ...........................................................................................................
EL4 + Inlet Air Preheat ...........................................................................................................................
Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech) .................................................................................................................
........................
7.00
11.81
12.63
19.43
70.28
225.41
TABLE IV.14—DIRECT FINAL RULE ANALYSIS: VENTED ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER
PRODUCTION COSTS
Efficiency level
Design option
Incremental
MPC
(2022$)
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
5 .....................................
6 .....................................
Baseline (Electromechanical Controls) ...................................................................................................
Baseline + Electronic Controls ................................................................................................................
EL1 + Optimized Heating System ...........................................................................................................
EL2 + More Advanced Automatic Termination Control System .............................................................
EL3 + Modulating (2-Stage) Heat ...........................................................................................................
EL4 + Inlet Air Preheat ...........................................................................................................................
Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech) .................................................................................................................
........................
7.63
12.43
13.26
20.06
70.90
226.03
TABLE IV.15—DIRECT FINAL RULE ANALYSIS: VENTED GAS STANDARD INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION
COSTS
Efficiency level
Design option
Incremental
MPC
(2022$)
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
Baseline (Electromechanical Controls) ...................................................................................................
Baseline + Electronic Controls ................................................................................................................
EL1 + Optimized Heating System and More Advanced Automatic Termination Control System .........
EL2 + Modulating (2-Stage) Heat ...........................................................................................................
EL3 + Inlet Air Preheat (Max-Tech) ........................................................................................................
........................
9.64
11.55
21.59
66.52
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
TABLE IV.16—DIRECT FINAL RULE ANALYSIS: VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER
PRODUCTION COSTS
Efficiency level
Design option
Incremental
MPC
(2022$)
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
Baseline (Electronic Controls) .................................................................................................................
Baseline + More Advanced Automatic Termination Control System .....................................................
Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech) .................................................................................................................
........................
2.35
196.51
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
18187
TABLE IV.17—DIRECT FINAL RULE ANALYSIS: VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMBINATION WASHER-DRYER INCREMENTAL
MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS
Efficiency level
Design option
Incremental
MPC
(2022$)
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
Baseline (Electronic Controls) .................................................................................................................
Baseline + High-Speed Spin ...................................................................................................................
Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech) .................................................................................................................
........................
* 0.00
420.04
* Most ventless electric combination washer-dryers are already equipped with a spin-only mode option as a standard feature resulting in an incremental MPC of $0.00 for this design option.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops
appropriate markups (e.g., manufacturer
markups, retailer markups, distributor
markups, contractor markups) in the
distribution chain and sales taxes to
convert the MSP estimates derived in
the engineering analysis to consumer
prices, which are then used in the LCC
and PBP analysis. At each step in the
distribution channel, companies mark
up the price of the product to cover
business costs and profit margin.
DOE considered two distribution
channels through which consumer
clothes dryers move from manufacturers
to consumers. The majority of consumer
clothes dryer sales go through the direct
retailer channel, in which
manufacturers sell the products directly
to retailers, who then sell to consumers.
This direct retailer channel accounts for
90 percent of the consumer clothes
dryer market. The rest of the market
goes through a separate new
construction distribution channel, in
which manufacturers sell the products
to wholesalers, who in turn sell the
products to general contractors, then to
consumers. The main parties in the
post-manufacturer distribution channels
are retailers, wholesalers, and
contractors.
DOE developed baseline and
incremental markups for each actor in
the distribution channels. Baseline
markups are applied to the price of
products with baseline efficiency, while
incremental markups are applied to the
difference in price between baseline and
higher efficiency models (the
incremental cost increase). The
incremental markup is typically less
than the baseline markup and is
designed to maintain similar per-unit
operating profit before and after new or
amended standards.47
47 Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the
price of baseline products, using the same markup
for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While
such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in
markets that are reasonably competitive it is
unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable
increase in profitability in the long run.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
DOE relied on economic data from the
U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average
baseline and incremental markups.
Specifically, DOE used the 2017 Annual
Retail Trade Survey for the ‘‘electronics
and appliance stores’’ sector to develop
retailer markups; 48 the 2017 Annual
Wholesale Trade Survey for ‘‘household
appliances, and electrical and electronic
goods merchant wholesalers’’ to
estimate wholesaler markups; 49 and the
2017 Economic Census for the
residential construction sector to derive
general contractor markups.50
Chapter 6 of the direct final rule TSD
provides details on DOE’s development
of markups for consumer clothes dryers.
E. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use
analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of consumer
clothes dryers at different efficiencies in
representative U.S. single-family homes,
multifamily residences, and mobile
homes and to assess the energy savings
potential of increased consumer clothes
dryer efficiency. The energy use
analysis estimates the range of energy
use of consumer clothes dryers in the
field (i.e., as they are actually used by
consumers). The energy use analysis
provides the basis for other analyses
DOE performed, particularly
assessments of the energy savings and
the savings in consumer operating costs
that could result from adoption of
amended or new standards.
In conducting the energy use analysis
for this direct final rule, DOE
considered comments it had received in
response to the proposed analysis in the
48 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Retail Trade
Survey. 2017. Available at www.census.gov/
programs-surveys/arts.html (last accessed Feb. 1,
2022).
49 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Wholesale Trade
Survey. 2017. Available at www.census.gov/
wholesale/ (last accessed Feb. 1, 2022).
50 U.S. Census Bureau. 2017 Economic Census:
Construction Industry Series: Detailed Statistics for
Establishments: 2017. New Single-Family General
Contractors, New Multifamily Housing
Construction (Except Operative Builders), New
Housing Operative Builders, and Residential
Remodelers. Sector 23: 236115 through 236118.
2017. U.S. Census.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
August 2022 NOPR. DOE received a
comment from AHAM regarding the
number of annual use cycles in the
August 2022 NOPR energy use analysis.
AHAM requested that DOE review the
2020 Residential Energy Consumption
Survey (‘‘2020 RECS’’) data 51 and adjust
the annual number of cycles
accordingly. AHAM stated that it
previously commented that RECS 2015
suggested an annual number of cycles of
236 as opposed to the 283 cycles in the
current test procedure, which is
consistent with the observation that
clothes washer cycles have decreased in
number to 234 cycles per year using the
2015 RECS. According to AHAM, it
does not make sense for clothes washer
cycles to decrease and clothes dryer
cycles to increase or even stay the same.
AHAM suggested that based on the 2020
RECS, the annual number of cycles
should be 209. (AHAM, No. 46 at p. 12)
In the August 2022 NOPR analysis,
DOE used data from the EIA’s 2015
Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(‘‘2015 RECS’’) to establish a reasonable
range of energy consumption in the field
for consumer clothes dryers. DOE noted
that the microdata for the 2020 RECS
was not available at the time the NOPR
analysis was conducted but stated that
it would update the underlying data to
2020 RECS if it was available prior to
the final rule. 87 FR 51762. DOE is
aware that the 2020 RECS has been
published.52 This survey collected data
from 18,496 housing units and was
designed by EIA to represent the
household population in the United
States. Therefore, DOE has integrated
this data into its analysis for the direct
final rule concerning households using
clothes dryers.
DOE divided the sample of
households into four subsamples for the
product classes being analyzed:
51 The Residential Energy Consumption Survey
2020 data is available at www.eia.gov/consumption/
residential/data/2020/.
52 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy
Information Administration, Residential Energy
Consumption Survey: 2020 Public Use Data Files.
Available at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/
data/2020/index.php?view=microdata (last
accessed April 21, 2023).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
18188
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
standard or compact consumer clothes
dryers using electricity or natural gas as
the dryer fuel. For compact consumer
clothes dryers, DOE developed a
subsample consisting of households
with an electric or gas clothes dryer in
multifamily buildings, manufactured
homes, and single-family homes with
less than 1,000 square feet and no garage
or basement, since these products are
most likely to be found in these housing
types.
The energy use analysis requires DOE
to establish a range of total annual usage
(number of cycles) in order to estimate
annual energy consumption by a clothes
dryer. DOE estimated the number of
clothes dryer cycles per year for each
sample household using data from the
2020 RECS on the number of laundry
loads washed (clothes washer cycles)
per week and the frequency of clothes
dryer use. The average annual energy
consumption was then calculated,
reflecting an average annual sampleweighted usage of 213 cycles per year.
For each considered efficiency level,
DOE derived the field energy use by
separately estimating the active mode
and standby mode energy use and then
adding them together. The per-cycle
active mode energy consumption was
estimated using the DOE clothes dryer
test procedure at appendix D2. It was
then back calculated from the test
procedure results by dividing the weight
(lb) of clothes dried per-cycle (i.e., 8.45
lb for standard and 3 lb for compact
consumer clothes dryers) by the CEFD2
(lb/kWh) and subtracting standby
power. DOE adjusted the test procedure
energy use to reflect field conditions by
making an adjustment for clothes dryer
load weight and moisture removal
factor. Chapter 7 of the direct final rule
TSD provides more detail about these
calculations.
DOE also considered the impact of
clothes dryer operation on home heating
and cooling loads, given that a clothes
dryer releases heat to the surrounding
environment. If the clothes dryer is
located indoors, its use will tend to
slightly reduce the heating load during
the heating season and slightly increase
the cooling load during the cooling
season. To calculate this impact, DOE
first estimated whether the clothes dryer
in a RECS sample home is located in
conditioned space (referred to as
‘‘indoors’’) or in unconditioned space
(e.g., garages, unconditioned basements,
outdoor utility closets, or attics). Based
on the 2020 RECS and the 2019
American Housing Survey (‘‘AHS’’),53
53 U.S. Census Bureau: Housing and Household
Economic Statistics Division, American Housing
Survey National Data. 2019, HUD. Available at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
DOE assumed that 50 percent of vented
standard electric and gas consumer
clothes dryers are located indoors, while
100 percent of compact and ventless
consumer clothes dryers are located
indoors. For these installations, DOE
used the results from a European Union
study about the impacts of consumer
clothes dryers on home heating and
cooling loads to determine the
appropriate factor to apply to the total
clothes dryer energy use.54 This study
reported that for vented consumer
clothes dryers, there is a factor of
negative 3 to 9 percent (average 3
percent), and for ventless consumer
clothes dryers there is a factor of
positive 7 to 15 percent (average 11
percent).55 This effect is likely to be
approximately the same for all of the
considered efficiency levels because the
amount of air passing through the
clothes dryer does not vary.
Chapter 7 of the direct final rule TSD
provides details on DOE’s energy use
analysis for consumer clothes dryers.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP
analyses to evaluate the economic
impacts on individual consumers of
potential energy conservation standards
for consumer clothes dryers. The effect
of new or amended energy conservation
standards on individual consumers
usually involves a reduction in
operating cost and an increase in
purchase cost. DOE used the following
two metrics to measure consumer
impacts:
• The LCC is the total consumer
expense of an appliance or product over
the life of that product, consisting of
total installed cost (manufacturer selling
price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus
operating costs (expenses for energy use,
maintenance, and repair). To compute
the operating costs, DOE discounts
future operating costs to the time of
purchase and sums them over the
lifetime of the product.
• The PBP is the estimated amount of
time (in years) it takes consumers to
www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2019/
ahs-2019-public-use-file--puf-.html (last accessed
April 6, 2023).
54 Ru
¨ denauer, I. and C.-O. Gensch, Energy
demand of tumble driers with respect to differences
in technology and ambient conditions, January 13,
2004. European Committee of Domestic Equipment
Manufacturers (CECED).
55 For units that are located in conditioned space,
a negative factor for vented consumer clothes dryers
translates to a penalty in energy use, whereas a
positive factor for ventless consumer clothes dryers
translates to a credit in energy use. For details of
the calculations, see the Ru¨denauer and Gensch
study referenced above.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
recover the increased purchase cost
(including installation) of a more
efficient product through lower
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change
in annual operating cost for the year that
amended or new standards are assumed
to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE
measures the change in LCC relative to
the LCC in the no-new-standards case,
which reflects the estimated efficiency
distribution of consumer clothes dryers
in the absence of new or amended
energy conservation standards. In
contrast, the PBP for a given efficiency
level is measured relative to the baseline
product.
For each considered efficiency level
in each product class, DOE calculated
the LCC and PBP for a nationally
representative set of housing units. As
stated previously, DOE developed
household samples from the 2020 RECS.
For each sample household, DOE
determined the energy consumption for
the consumer clothes dryers and the
appropriate energy price. By developing
a representative sample of households,
the analysis captured the variability in
energy consumption and energy prices
associated with the use of consumer
clothes dryers.
Inputs to the calculation of total
installed cost include the cost of the
product—which includes MPCs,
manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor markups, and sales taxes—
and installation costs. Inputs to the
calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption,
energy prices and price projections,
repair and maintenance costs, product
lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE
created distributions of values for
product lifetime, discount rates, and
sales taxes, with probabilities attached
to each value, to account for their
uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to
calculate the LCC relies on a Monte
Carlo simulation to incorporate
uncertainty and variability into the
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations
randomly sample input values from the
probability distributions and consumer
clothes dryer user samples. For this
rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach
is implemented in MS Excel together
with the Crystal BallTM add-on.56 The
model calculated the LCC for products
56 Crystal BallTM is a commercially available
software tool to facilitate the creation of these types
of models by generating probability distributions
and summarizing results within Excel, available at
www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/
crystalball/overview/ (last accessed May
17, 2023).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
at each efficiency level for 10,000
housing units per simulation run. The
analytical results include a distribution
of 10,000 data points showing the range
of LCC savings for a given efficiency
level relative to the no-new-standards
case efficiency distribution. In
performing an iteration of the Monte
Carlo simulation for a given consumer,
product efficiency is chosen based on its
probability. If the chosen product
efficiency is greater than or equal to the
efficiency of the standard level under
consideration, the LCC calculation
reveals that a consumer is not impacted
by the standard level. By accounting for
consumers who already purchase more
efficient products, DOE avoids
overstating the potential benefits from
increasing product efficiency. DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for
consumers of consumer clothes dryers
as if each were to purchase a new
product in the first year of required
compliance with new or amended
standards. New and amended standards
apply to consumer clothes dryers
manufactured 3 years after the date on
which any new or amended standard is
published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i))
Therefore, DOE used 2027 as the first
year of compliance with any amended
18189
standards for consumer clothes dryers
for all the TSLs other than TSL 3. For
TSL 3, DOE used 2028 as the first year
of compliance for all product classes as
specified for the Recommended TSL in
the Joint Agreement.
Table IV.18 summarizes the approach
and data DOE used to derive inputs to
the LCC and PBP calculations. The
subsections that follow provide further
discussion. Details of the spreadsheet
model, and of all the inputs to the LCC
and PBP analyses, are contained in
chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD
and its appendices.
TABLE IV.18—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *
Inputs
Source/method
Product Costs .................................
Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax or by manufacturer,
wholesaler, and general contractor markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used historical data to derive
a price scaling index to project product costs.
Baseline installation cost determined with data from RSMeans Residential Cost Data 2022. Assumed no
change with efficiency level.
Total per-cycle energy use multiplied by the cycles per year. Average number of cycles based on field
data.
Variability: Based on the 2020 RECS (dryer usage), market data on remaining moisture content (RMC),
and load weights.
Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 data for 2022.
Variability: Regional energy prices by Census Division.
Based on AEO2023 energy price projections.
Repair costs vary between electromechanical and electronic control timers.
Average: 14 years.
Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances or that might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve
Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances.
TSL 1, TSL 2, TSL 4, TSL 5, and TSL 6: 2027.
TSL 3 (The Recommended TSL): 2028.
Installation Costs .............................
Annual Energy Use .........................
Energy Prices ..................................
Energy Price Trends .......................
Repair and Maintenance Costs ......
Product Lifetime ..............................
Discount Rates ................................
Compliance Date ............................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the following sections or in chapter 8 of
the direct final rule TSD.
For this direct final rule, DOE
considered comments it had received
regarding the methodology for
evaluating consumer economic impact
that were submitted in response to the
August 2022 NOPR. The approach used
for this direct final rule is largely the
same approach DOE had used for the
August 2022 NOPR analysis.
In response to the August 2022 NOPR
AHAM recommended that DOE modify
the way consumer economic impact is
analyzed and look at the probability that
individual consumers will benefit from
standards rather than whether the
aggregate benefit is positive. (AHAM,
No. 46 at p. 13)
In the LCC analysis, DOE notes that it
does estimate the impact of potential
standards on individual consumers in
the household sample and considers the
share of consumers that would benefit
from a standard as part of its evaluation
regarding whether particular standards
are economically justified.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
1. Product Cost
To calculate consumer product costs,
DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in
the engineering analysis by the markups
described previously (along with sales
taxes). DOE used different markups for
baseline products and higher efficiency
products because DOE applies an
incremental markup to the increase in
MSP associated with higher efficiency
products.
Economic literature and historical
data suggest that the real costs of many
products may trend downward over
time according to ‘‘learning’’ or
‘‘experience’’ curves. Experience curve
analysis implicitly includes factors such
as efficiencies in labor, capital
investment, automation, materials
prices, distribution, and economies of
scale at an industry-wide level. To
derive the learning rate parameter for
consumer clothes dryers, DOE obtained
historical Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’)
data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(‘‘BLS’’) for ‘‘household laundry
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
equipment’’ between 1947 and 2016 and
‘‘major household appliance: primary
products’’ between 2016 and 2022 to
form a time series price index
representing household laundry
equipment from 1947 to 2022.57
Inflation-adjusted price indices were
calculated by dividing the PPI series by
the gross domestic product index from
the Bureau of Economic Analysis for the
same years. Using this data from 1947
to 2022, the estimated learning rate
(defined as the fractional reduction in
price from each doubling of cumulative
production) is 17.2 percent.
For this direct final rule, DOE
considered comments it had received
regarding the methodology for
calculating consumer product costs that
were submitted in response to the
August 2022 NOPR. The approach used
57 ‘‘Household laundry equipment’’ PPI
(PCU3352203352204) is available through May
2016, and ‘‘major household appliance: primary
products’’ PPI (PCU335220335220P) is available
from May 2016 to present. See more information at
www.bls.gov/ppi/ (last accessed Nov. 29, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18190
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
for this direct final rule is largely the
same approach DOE had used for the
August 2022 NOPR analysis.
In response to the August 2022 NOPR,
AHAM stated that DOE’s pricing
estimates are incorrect because
currently, publicly available retail
market prices for the lowest-priced units
(many of which are equipped with
electromechanical controls) are
approximately $400, and DOE’s estimate
for a baseline standard electric unit is
$607. (AHAM, No. 46 at pp. 5–6, 8)
Whirlpool stated that DOE does not
consider retail prices for models
actually being sold in the market today
that meet varying efficiency levels and
actually utilize technology options
needed to meet TSL 3. Whirlpool
commented that retail price differences
between $200 and $300 may be a better
reflection of the expected price
premiums for consumers from amended
standards than DOE’s analysis and
methodology. (Whirlpool, No. 53 at p. 7)
In response, DOE notes that the actual
retail price differences between a
baseline and higher efficiency level
currently on the market may include the
price for other premium features in
addition to engineering designs relating
to efficiency. Additionally, retail prices
reflect economies of scale in production
as well as marketing strategies and
profit margins of manufacturers and
retailers. DOE maintains that its
traditional approach, which has been
subject to peer review, is better able to
identify the incremental costs that are
only connected to higher efficiency.
Furthermore, in this direct final rule
analysis, DOE leveraged web scraping to
gather data on clothes dryer models
available on the market from January to
March 2023. The data was collected
from major retail outlets, including Best
Buy, Lowe’s, and AJ Madison. DOE
found that the lowest-priced baseline
model cost $630. DOE therefore
concluded that its baseline estimate for
a standard electric unit is reasonable for
this direct final rule.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor,
overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the
product. DOE used data from RSMeans
Residential Cost Data to estimate the
baseline installation cost for consumer
clothes dryers.58 DOE estimated that for
the new construction market, it takes,
on average, 1 hour to install a clothes
dryer, while for the replacement or new58 RSMeans
Online Residential Data (2022
Release). Gordian: Greenville, SC. Available at
www.rsmeansonline.com (last accessed April 6,
2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
owner market, it takes 2.5 hours (i.e., 1
hour for the trip charge, 30 minutes to
remove the old clothes dryer, and 1
hour to install). DOE found no evidence
that increased efficiency levels would
impact installation costs.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled household, DOE
determined the energy consumption for
a consumer clothes dryer at different
efficiency levels using the approach
described previously in section IV.E of
this document.
4. Energy Prices
Because marginal electricity and gas
prices more accurately capture the
incremental savings associated with a
change in energy use from higher
efficiency, they provide a better
representation of incremental change in
consumer costs than average electricity
and gas prices. Therefore, DOE applied
average electricity and gas prices for the
energy use of the product purchased in
the no-new-standards case, and
marginal electricity and gas prices for
the incremental change in energy use
associated with the other efficiency
levels considered.
DOE derived electricity prices in 2022
using data from EEI Typical Bills and
Average Rates reports. Based upon
comprehensive, industry-wide surveys,
this semi-annual report presents typical
monthly electric bills and average
kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as
charged by investor-owned utilities. For
the residential sector, DOE calculated
electricity prices using the methodology
described in Coughlin and Beraki
(2018).59
DOE obtained data for calculating
regional prices of natural gas from the
EIA publication Natural Gas.60 This
publication presents monthly volumes
of natural gas deliveries and average
prices by state for residential,
commercial, and industrial customers.
DOE’s methodology allows electricity
and gas prices to vary by sector, region,
and season. In the analysis, variability
in electricity and gas prices is chosen to
be consistent with the way the
consumer economic and energy use
characteristics are defined in the LCC
analysis. For consumer clothes dryers,
DOE calculated weighted average values
59 Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and
Estimation Methods. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL–
2001169. Available at ees.lbl.gov/publications/
residential-electricity-prices-review (last accessed
April 6, 2023).
60 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy
Information Administration. Natural Gas Navigator
2022. Available at www.eia.gov/naturalgas/
data.php (last accessed April 6, 2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for average and marginal electricity and
gas price for the nine census divisions.
See chapter 8 of the direct final rule
TSD for details.
To estimate energy prices in future
years, DOE multiplied the 2022 energy
prices by the projection of annual
average price changes for each of the
nine census divisions from the
Reference case in AEO2023, which has
an end year of 2050.61 To estimate price
trends after 2050, the 2046–2050
average was used for all years.
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with
repairing or replacing product
components that have failed in an
appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the
operation of the product. Past rules
indicate in general that small,
incremental increases in product
efficiency produce no, or only minor,
changes in repair and maintenance costs
compared to baseline efficiency
products. 76 FR 22454.
For consumer clothes dryers, DOE
derived an annualized repair rate based
on Consumer Reports data on repair and
maintenance issues for consumer
clothes dryers. DOE estimated that the
average repair rate (which measures the
repair frequency) for electric and gas
consumer clothes dryers is 12 percent
and 14 percent, respectively. The most
likely repairs concern the
electromechanical control unit or the
electronic control unit. The repair costs
are annualized by dividing by the
average equipment lifetime of 14 years.
For this direct final rule, DOE
considered comments it had received
regarding the maintenance and repair
costs that were submitted in response to
the August 2022 NOPR. Whirlpool
stated that DOE’s NOPR analysis failed
to adequately account for the increased
repair costs associated with more
advanced and expensive electronic parts
in electronic control dryers, which
would be mandated through DOE’s
proposed standards. Whirlpool
commented that a timer replacement on
an electromechanical control dryer will
be significantly cheaper than the
replacement of an equivalent failed
component on an electronic control
dryer, with major component
differences being the timer, push-to-start
button, rotary switch, buzzer, appliance
control unit, and user interface
assembly. (Whirlpool, No. 53 at pp. 8–
9)
61 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy
Information Administration. Annual Energy
Outlook 2023 with Projections to 2050. Washington,
DC. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ (last
accessed May 7, 2023).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
As previously stated, for this direct
final rule, DOE has updated its
methodology for estimating repair costs
and included repair costs associated
with timer replacement in both
electromechanical control and
electronic control dryers. Based on the
information provided by Whirlpool and
a literature review, DOE estimated the
repair cost to be $75 for an
electromechanical control unit and $225
for an electronic control unit.
6. Product Lifetime
For consumer clothes dryers, DOE
developed a distribution of lifetimes
from which specific values were
assigned to the appliances in the test
sample. DOE analyzed actual lifetime in
the field using a combination of
historical shipments data, the stock of
the considered appliances in the
American Housing Survey, and
responses in a number of RECS on the
age of the appliances in the homes. The
data allowed DOE to estimate a survival
function, which provided an average
appliance lifetime of approximately 14
years. From the 2015 RECS to the 2020
RECS, there was a 6-percent increase in
the number of consumer clothes dryers
retiring before reaching 4 years of age,
and an additional 1 percent lasting
beyond 15 years. Therefore, for this
direct final rule, DOE’s estimated
average lifetime for consumer clothes
dryers remains 14 years, with a
distribution that includes 1 percent
more dryers retiring before reaching 4
years and 2 percent more dryers
remaining after 15 years and up to 30
years, compared to the NOPR Weibull
lifetime probability distribution. See
chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD for
further details.
7. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE
applies discount rates appropriate to
households to estimate the present
value of future operating cost savings.
DOE estimated a distribution of
discount rates for consumer clothes
dryers based on the opportunity cost of
consumer funds.
DOE applies weighted average
discount rates calculated from consumer
debt and asset data, rather than marginal
or implicit discount rates.62 The LCC
analysis estimates net present value
over the lifetime of the product, so the
appropriate discount rate will reflect the
general opportunity cost of household
funds, taking this time scale into
account. Given the long-time horizon
modeled in the LCC, the application of
a marginal interest rate associated with
an initial source of funds is inaccurate.
Regardless of the method of purchase,
consumers are expected to continue to
rebalance their debt and asset holdings
over the LCC analysis period, based on
the restrictions consumers face in their
debt payment requirements and the
relative size of the interest rates
available on debts and assets. DOE
estimates the aggregate impact of this
rebalancing using the historical
distribution of debts and assets.
To establish residential discount rates
for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all
relevant household debt or asset classes
in order to approximate a consumer’s
opportunity cost of funds related to
appliance energy cost savings. It
estimated the average percentage shares
of the various types of debt and equity
by household income group using data
from the Federal Reserve Board’s
triennial Survey of Consumer
Finances 63 (‘‘SCF’’) starting in 1995 and
ending in 2019. Using the SCF and other
sources, DOE developed a distribution
of rates for each type of debt and asset
by income group to represent the rates
that may apply in the year in which
amended standards would take effect.
18191
DOE assigned each sample household a
specific discount rate drawn from one of
the distributions. The average rate
across all types of household debt and
equity and income groups, weighted by
the shares of each type, is 4.3 percent.
See chapter 8 of the direct final rule
TSD for further details on the
development of consumer discount
rates.
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the
No-New-Standards Case
To accurately estimate the share of
consumers that would be affected by a
potential energy conservation standard
at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s
LCC analysis considered the projected
distribution (market shares) of product
efficiencies under the no-new-standards
case (i.e., the case without amended or
new energy conservation standards).
To estimate the energy efficiency
distribution of consumer clothes dryers
for 2027 or 2028, DOE used 2021 model
data from DOE’s CCD and shipments
data for consumer clothes dryers from
the ENERGY STAR program.64 65 Based
on the historical shipments trend of
ENERGY STAR-qualified consumer
clothes dryers, DOE estimated an annual
0.47-percent and 0.02-percent increase
in shipment-weighted efficiency for
electric standard and vented gas
standard clothes dryers, respectively,
beginning in 2021. Annual shipmentweighted efficiency for the other
product classes (which in total have less
than 2.5-percent market share) is held
constant. The estimated market shares
for the no-new-standards case for
consumer clothes dryers are shown in
Table IV.19 and Table IV.20. See
chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD for
further information on the derivation of
the efficiency distributions.
TABLE IV.19—NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION IN 2027 AND 2028: ELECTRIC STANDARD, ELECTRIC
COMPACT (120V), ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V), AND VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V)
Electric standard
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
Market share
(%)
2.20 ..............................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Electric compact (120V)
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
14
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
Market share
(%)
2.36
62 The implicit discount rate is inferred from a
consumer purchase decision between two otherwise
identical goods with different first cost and
operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the
increment of first cost to the difference in net
present value of lifetime operating cost,
incorporating the influence of several factors:
transaction costs; risk premiums and response to
uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at
which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. The
implicit discount rate is not appropriate for the LCC
Vented electric compact
(240V)
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
20
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Market share
(%)
2.00
analysis because it reflects a range of factors that
influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than
the opportunity cost of the funds that are used in
purchases.
63 U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998,
2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019.
Available at www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/
scf/scfindex.htm (last accessed May 2023).
64 U.S. Department of Energy’s Compliance
Certification Database. Available at
Ventless electric compact
(240V)
35
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
2.03
Market share
(%)
14
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/
#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (last accessed April 17,
2023).
65 ENERGY STAR, ENERGY STAR® Unit
Shipment and Market Penetration Report Calendar
Year 2021 Summary. Available at
www.energystar.gov/partner_resources/products_
partner_resources/brand_owner_resources/unit_
shipment_data (last accessed April 17, 2023).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18192
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV.19—NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION IN 2027 AND 2028: ELECTRIC STANDARD, ELECTRIC
COMPACT (120V), ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V), AND VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V)—Continued
Electric standard
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
2.68
3.04
3.27
3.93
4.21
5.20
7.39
Electric compact (120V)
Market share
(%)
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
13
13
9
42
* 6 (7)
2
1
Vented electric compact
(240V)
Market share
(%)
3.15
3.35
4.28
4.33
4.63
6.37
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
15
25
0
0
0
40
Ventless electric compact
(240V)
Market share
(%)
2.44
2.76
3.30
3.57
3.82
3.91
25
30
10
0
0
0
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
Market share
(%)
2.68
6.80
59
28
* The value in the parentheses indicates 2028 market share.
TABLE IV.20 NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION IN 2027 AND 2028: VENTED GAS STANDARD, AND
VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMBINATION WASHER-DRYER *
Vented gas standard
Ventless electric, combination
washer-dryer
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
2.00
2.44
3.00
3.48
3.83
Market share
(%)
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
15
19
18
48
0
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
2.27
2.33
4.01
Market share
(%)
39
58
3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
* There are no models or shipments data for vented gas compact clothes dryers on the market.
The LCC Monte Carlo simulations
draw from the efficiency distributions
and randomly assign an efficiency to the
consumer clothes dryers purchased by
each sample household in the no-newstandards case. The resulting percentage
shares within the sample match the
market shares in the efficiency
distributions.
In the August 2022 NOPR, DOE
performed a random assignment of
efficiency levels to consumers in its
Monte Carlo sample. While DOE
acknowledges that economic factors
may play a role when consumers decide
on what type of clothes dryers to install,
assignment of clothes dryer efficiency
for a given installation, based solely on
economic measures such as life-cycle
cost or simple payback period, most
likely would not fully and accurately
reflect actual real-world installations.
There are a number of market failures
discussed in the economics literature
that illustrate how purchasing decisions
with respect to energy efficiency are
unlikely to be perfectly correlated with
energy use, as described below. DOE
maintains that the method of
assignment, is a reasonable approach,
because it simulates behavior in the
clothes dryer market, where market
failures result in purchasing decisions
not being perfectly aligned with
economic interests, more realistically
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
than relying only on apparent costeffectiveness criteria derived from the
limited information in RECS. DOE
further emphasizes that its approach
does not assume that all purchasers of
consumer clothes dryers make
economically irrational decisions (i.e.,
the lack of a correlation is not the same
as a negative correlation). As part of the
random assignment, some homes with
more frequent dryer events will be
assigned higher efficiency clothes
dryers, and some homes with
particularly lower dryer events will be
assigned baseline units. By using this
approach, DOE acknowledges the
uncertainty inherent in the data and
minimizes any bias in the analysis by
using random assignment, as opposed to
assuming certain market conditions that
are unsupported given the available
evidence.
The following discussion provides
more detail about the various market
failures that affect consumer clothes
dryer purchases. First, consumers are
motivated by more than simple financial
trade-offs. There are several behavioral
factors that can influence the
purchasing decisions of complicated
multi-attribute products, such as
consumer clothes dryers. For example,
consumers (or decision makers in an
organization) are highly influenced by
choice architecture, defined as the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
framing of the decision, the surrounding
circumstances of the purchase, the
alternatives available, and how they are
presented for any given choice
scenario.66 The same consumer or
decision maker may make different
choices depending on the characteristics
of the decision context (e.g., the timing
of the purchase, competing demands for
funds), which have nothing to do with
the characteristics of the alternatives
themselves or their prices. Consumers
or decision makers also face a variety of
other behavioral phenomena including
loss aversion, sensitivity to information
salience, and other forms of bounded
rationality.67 Thaler, who won the
Nobel Prize in Economics in 2017 for
his contributions to behavioral
economics, and Sunstein point out that
these behavioral factors are strongest
when the decisions are complex and
infrequent, when feedback on the
decision is muted and slow, and when
66 Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., and Balz, J.P.
(2014). ‘‘Choice Architecture’’ in The Behavioral
Foundations of Public Policy, Eldar Shafir (ed).
67 Thaler, R.H., and Bernartzi, S. (2004). ‘‘Save
More Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics in
Increase Employee Savings,’’ Journal of Political
Economy 112(1), S164–S187. See also Klemick, H.,
et al. (2015) ‘‘Heavy-Duty Trucking and the Energy
Efficiency Paradox: Evidence from Focus Groups
and Interviews,’’ Transportation Research Part A:
Policy & Practice, 77, 154–166 (providing evidence
that loss aversion and other market failures can
affect otherwise profit-maximizing firms).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
there is a high degree of information
asymmetry.68 These characteristics
describe almost all purchasing
situations of appliances and equipment,
including consumer clothes dryers. The
installation of a new or replacement
consumer clothes dryers is done very
infrequently, as evidenced by the mean
lifetime of 14 years for consumer clothes
dryers. Further, if the purchaser of the
consumer clothes dryer is not the entity
paying the energy costs (e.g., a building
owner and tenant), there may be little to
no feedback on the purchase.
Additionally, there are systematic
market failures that are likely to
contribute further complexity to how
products are chosen by consumers, as
explained in the following paragraphs.
The first of these market failures—the
split-incentive or principal-agent
problem—is likely to significantly affect
consumer clothes dryers. The principalagent problem is a market failure that
results when the consumer that
purchases the equipment does not
internalize all of the costs associated
with operating the equipment. Instead,
the user of the product, who has no
control over the purchase decision, pays
the operating costs. There is a high
likelihood of split-incentive problems in
the case of rental properties where the
landlord makes the choice of what
consumer clothes dryers to install,
whereas the renter is responsible for
paying energy bills.
In addition to the split-incentive
problem, there are other market failures
that are likely to affect the choice of
consumer clothes dryer efficiency made
by consumers. For example, unplanned
replacements due to unexpected failure
of equipment such as a consumer
clothes dryer are strongly biased toward
like-for-like replacement (i.e., replacing
the non-functioning equipment with a
similar or identical product). Time is a
constraining factor during unplanned
replacements, and consumers may not
consider the full range of available
options on the market, despite their
availability. The consideration of
alternative product options is far more
likely for planned replacements and
installations in new construction.
Additionally, Davis and Metcalf 69
conducted an experiment demonstrating
that, even when consumers are
68 Thaler, R.H., and Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge:
Improving Decisions on Health, Wealth, and
Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
69 Davis, L.W., and G.E. Metcalf (2016): ‘‘Does
better information lead to better choices? Evidence
from energy-efficiency labels,’’ Journal of the
Association of Environmental and Resource
Economists, 3(3), 589–625. Available at:
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/
686252 (Last accessed August 1, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
presented with energy consumption
information, the nature of the
information available to consumers (e.g.,
from EnergyGuide labels) results in an
inefficient allocation of energy
efficiency across households with
different usage levels. Their findings
indicate that households are likely to
make decisions regarding the efficiency
of the air conditioning equipment of
their homes that do not result in the
highest net present value for their
specific usage pattern (i.e., their
decision is based on imperfect
information and, therefore, is not
necessarily optimal). Also, most
consumers did not properly understand
the labels (specifically whether energy
consumption and cost estimates were
national averages or specific to their
State). As such, consumers did not make
the most informed decisions. Consumer
clothes dryers do not require
EnergyGuide labels, therefore energy
consumption information is more
difficult to determine for a consumer,
resulting in an even more inefficient
allocation of energy efficiency across
households with different usage levels.
In part because of the way
information is presented, and in part
because of the way consumers process
information, there is also a market
failure consisting of a systematic bias in
the perception of equipment energy
usage, which can affect consumer
choices. Attari et al.70 show that
consumers tend to underestimate the
energy use of large energy-intensive
appliances (such as air conditioners,
dishwashers, and clothes dryers), but
overestimate the energy use of small
appliances (such as light bulbs).
Therefore, it is possible that consumers
systematically underestimate the energy
use associated with consumer clothes
dryers, resulting in less cost-effective
purchases.
These market failures affect a sizeable
share of the consumer population. A
study by Houde 71 indicates that there is
a significant subset of consumers that
appear to purchase appliances without
taking into account their energy
efficiency and operating costs at all.
The existence of market failures in the
residential sector is well supported by
the economics literature and by a
70 Attari, S.Z., M.L. DeKay, C.I. Davidson, and W.
Bruine de Bruin (2010): ‘‘Public perceptions of
energy consumption and savings.’’ Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 107(37), 16054–
16059. Available at: www.pnas.org/content/107/37/
16054 (Last accessed August 1, 2023).
71 Houde, S. (2018): ‘‘How Consumers Respond to
Environmental Certification and the Value of
Energy Information,’’ The RAND Journal of
Economics, 49 (2), 453–477. Available at:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/17562171.12231 (Last accessed August 1, 2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18193
number of case studies. If DOE
developed an efficiency distribution
that assigned consumer clothes dryer
efficiency in the no-new-standards case
solely according to energy use or
economic considerations such as lifecycle cost or payback period, the
resulting distribution of efficiencies
within the consumer sample would not
reflect any of the market failures or
behavioral factors above. Thus, DOE
concludes such a distribution would not
be representative of the consumer
clothes dryer market. Further, even if a
specific household is not subject to the
market failures above, the purchasing
decision of consumer clothes dryer
efficiency can be highly complex and
influenced by a number of factors (e.g.,
aesthetics) not captured by the building
characteristics available in the RECS
sample. These factors can lead to
households or building owners choosing
a consumer clothes dryer efficiency that
deviates from the efficiency predicted
using only energy use or economic
considerations such as life-cycle cost or
payback period (as calculated using the
information from RECS 2020).
There is a complex set of behavioral
factors, with sometimes opposing
effects, affecting the consumer clothes
dryer market. It is impractical to model
every consumer decision incorporating
all of these effects at this extreme level
of granularity given the limited
available data. Given these myriad
factors, DOE estimates the resulting
distribution of such a model, if it were
possible, would be very scattered with
high variability. It is for this reason DOE
utilizes a random distribution (after
accounting for efficiency market share
constraints) to approximate these
effects. The methodology is not an
assertion of economic irrationality, but
instead, it is a methodological
approximation of complex consumer
behavior. The analysis is neither biased
toward high or low energy savings. The
methodology does not preferentially
assign lower-efficiency consumer
clothes dryers to households in the nonew-standards case where savings from
the rule would be greatest, nor does it
preferentially assign lower-efficiency
consumer clothes dryers to households
in the no-new-standards case where
savings from the rule would be smallest.
Some consumers were assigned the
clothes dryers that they would have
chosen if they had engaged in perfect
economic considerations when
purchasing the products. Others were
assigned less-efficient clothes dryers
even where a more-efficient product
would eventually result in life-cycle
savings, simulating scenarios where, for
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
18194
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
example, various market failures
prevent consumers from realizing those
savings. Still others were assigned
clothes dryers that were more efficient
than one would expect simply from lifecycle costs analysis, reflecting, say,
‘‘green’’ behavior, whereby consumers
ascribe independent value to
minimizing harm to the environment.
Therefore, for this direct final rule,
DOE performed a random assignment of
efficiencies in the LCC analysis.
Additionally, for this direct final rule,
DOE considered comments it received
regarding the projected distribution of
product efficiencies under the no-newstandards case that were submitted in
response to the August 2022 NOPR. The
CA IOUs requested that DOE clarify the
changes in efficiency distributions from
the 2021 preliminary analysis to the
August 2022 NOPR analysis,
specifically regarding the percentage of
products that meet or exceed the
ENERGY STAR level in the no-newstandards case. The CA IOUs stated that
the preliminary analysis efficiency
distributions resulted in a reasonably
favorable consumer impact analysis for
TSL 4. The CA IOUs recommended that
DOE reconsider the analysis and
conclusion regarding TSL 4 if the
preliminary analysis efficiency
distributions were more accurate. (CA
IOUs, No. 50 at pp. 3–4).
In the 2021 preliminary analysis, DOE
utilized a consumer-choice model to
calculate market share of various
efficiency options for consumer clothes
dryers. This model considered factors
such as the first cost for electric
standard, vented gas standard, ventless
electric compact (204V), and ventless
electric washer-dryer units. The
consumer-choice model relied on
historical sales data from 2005 to 2011.
To project the efficiency distribution for
other product classes (electric compact
(120V), vented electric compact (240V),
DOE used inputs based on its own test
samples and a review of models
available in the market.
In the 2022 NOPR analysis, DOE
evaluated concerns expressed by
stakeholders regarding the adequacy
and representativeness of the historical
sales data from 2005 to 2011. DOE
recognized that these data might not
accurately reflect the correlations
between shipments and sale prices in
recent years. For this reason, as well as
to maintain consistency in its
methodology across product classes,
DOE elected to use CCD model counts 72
72 The CCD database lists basic models of certified
consumer clothes dryers that are subject to DOE’s
energy conservation standards, including their rated
capacities and CEF. These clothes dryer models are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
instead of market shipments data to
derive the no-new-standards case
efficiency distributions for the NOPR.
The Joint Commenters commented
that the ENERGY STAR shipment data
is a better reflection of the consumer
clothes dryer market than CCD model
counts. The Joint Commenters stated
that according to the ENERGY STAR
shipment data, only about 40 percent of
electric standard dryer models meet TSL
3 as opposed to DOE’s estimate of 65
percent. (Joint Commenters, No. 51 at
pp. 3–4).
For this direct final rule, DOE has
considered the ENERGY STAR
shipment data for standard consumer
clothes dryers along with other
pertinent market information. As a
result, DOE has revised the market share
estimate for electric and gas standard
consumer clothes dryers meeting
ENERGY STAR criteria in the
compliance year. DOE reduced market
share of electric standard consumer
clothes dryers that meet TSL 3 from 61
percent to 42 percent and increased
market share of gas standard consumer
clothes dryers that meet TSL 3 from 38
percent to 48 percent. For the remaining
product classes, which together account
for less than 2.5 percent of the total
shipments, DOE has continued to use
the CCD model counts because it is not
aware of other available information.
9. Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of
time (expressed in years) it takes the
consumer to recover the additional
installed cost of more efficient products,
compared to baseline products, through
energy cost savings. Payback periods
that exceed the life of the product mean
that the increased total installed cost is
not recovered in reduced operating
expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for
each efficiency level are the change in
total installed cost of the product and
the change in the first-year annual
operating expenditures relative to the
baseline. DOE refers to this as a ‘‘simple
PBP’’ because it does not consider
changes over time in operating cost
savings. The PBP calculation uses the
same inputs as the LCC analysis when
deriving first-year operating costs.
As noted previously, EPCA
establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified
if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a
product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less
than three times the value of the first
submitted by manufacturers or their third-party
representatives.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
year’s energy savings resulting from the
standard, as calculated under the
applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered
efficiency level, DOE determined the
value of the first year’s energy savings
by calculating the energy savings in
accordance with the applicable DOE test
procedure and multiplying those
savings by the average energy price
projection for the year in which
compliance with the amended standards
would be required.
G. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual
product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended
or new energy conservation standards
on energy use, NPV, and future
manufacturer cash flows.73 The
shipments model takes an accounting
approach, tracking market shares of
each product class and the vintage of
units in the stock. Stock accounting uses
product shipments as inputs to estimate
the age distribution of in-service
product stocks for all years. The age
distribution of in-service product stocks
is a key input to calculations of both the
NES and NPV, because operating costs
for any year depend on the age
distribution of the stock.
Total product shipments for consumer
clothes dryers are developed by
considering the demand from
replacements for units in stock that fail
and the demand from new installations
in newly constructed homes. DOE
calculated shipments due to
replacements using the retirement
function developed for the LCC
analysis. DOE calculated shipments due
to new installations using estimates for
consumer clothes dryer saturation rates
in newly constructed homes from 2015
to 2020 in the 2020 RECS and
projections of new housing starts in
AEO2023.
DOE disaggregated total product
shipments into each product class using
estimated market shares of each product
class. To estimate these market shares,
DOE first developed a linear time series
regression model to estimate market
share between the product fuel type
(i.e., gas or electric) by fitting the
historical shipments of gas consumer
clothes dryers. Historical shipments
data showed a steady decline of market
share of gas consumer clothes dryers,
from 23 percent in 2000 to 17 percent
in 2022. The linear regression model
indicates that market share of gas
73 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as
a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales
are lacking. In general, one would expect a close
correspondence between shipments and sales.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
consumer clothes dryers is strongly
correlated with its historical time series.
After developing the market share
estimation between electric and gas
consumer clothes dryers, DOE then
subtracted the estimated gas clothes
dryer market share from total shipments
and divided the electric clothes dryer
market share into each electric
consumer clothes dryer product class.
DOE estimated that electric standard
and vented gas standard consumer
clothes dryers account for
approximately 84 percent and 14
percent of the total shipments during
the analysis period, respectively.
To estimate shipments under a
standards case, DOE considers the
impacts on shipments from changes in
product purchase price and operating
cost associated with higher energy
efficiency levels using a price elasticity
and an efficiency elasticity. As in the
April 2021 preliminary analysis, DOE
employed an efficiency elasticity rate of
0.2 percent and a price elasticity rate of
¥0.45 percent in its shipments model.
These values are based on analysis of
aggregated data for five residential
appliances: consumer clothes washers,
dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, and
room air conditioners.74 The market
impact is defined as the difference
between the product of price elasticity
of demand and the change in price due
to a standard level, and the product of
the efficiency elasticity and the change
in operating costs due to a standard
level.
DOE assumed when market impact
occurs (i.e., when shipments drop under
a standards case), the affected
consumers would either repair their
product or purchase a used clothes
dryer rather than a new one. In the
repair scenario, the model assumes that
the product’s life is extended by
approximately 5 years. In the used
product scenario, the model assumes
the remaining average lifetime for a
used clothes dryer is 7 years. Therefore,
this market impact effectively
influences the decision between
repairing or replacing the product, as
well as the decision between purchasing
a used dryer or a new one. See chapter
9 of the direct final rule TSD for details.
For this direct final rule, DOE
considered comments it received
regarding the shipments analysis that
were submitted in response to the
August 2022 NOPR. Whirlpool
commented that consumers may
continue replacing cheaper components
well into the life of an
electromechanical controlled dryer,
extending its life, while they may not
decide to make a more expensive
electronic component repair, like a user
interface assembly, after several years of
ownership of an electronic control
dryer. Whirlpool stated that DOE’s
proposed standards may effectively
shorten the useful life of a consumer
clothes dryer because of this repairversus-replacement calculus, resulting
in loss of time-saving benefits of dryer
ownership. (Whirlpool, No. 53 at pp. 8–
9)
As stated in section IV.C.1 of this
document, the recommended standards
would continue to allow for
electromechanical controlled clothes
dryers to be sold on the market. In
addition, DOE is not aware of reliability
issues associated with the
implementation of electronic controls
relative to electromechanical controls.
Whirlpool’s assertion that the adopted
standards may shorten the useful life of
consumer clothes dryers lacks
quantitative data to support it. As stated
in section IV.F.6 of this document,
DOE’s lifetime estimation is calibrated
using shipments data, which include
the adopted efficiency levels of
ENERGY STAR-qualified consumer
clothes dryers sold in the market. DOE’s
updated Weibull lifetime distribution in
this direct final rule captures the trend
of shorter lifetime and delayed
replacement of consumer clothes dryers
based on the recent field data. See
chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD for
details.
H. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the NES and the
NPV from a national perspective of total
consumer costs and savings that would
be expected to result from new or
amended standards at specific efficiency
levels.75 (‘‘Consumer’’ in this context
refers to consumers of the product being
regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and
NPV for the potential standard levels
considered based on projections of
annual product shipments, along with
the annual energy consumption and
total installed cost data from the energy
use and LCC analyses. For the present
analysis, DOE projected the energy
savings, operating cost savings, product
costs, and NPV of consumer benefits
over the lifetime of consumer clothes
dryers sold from 2027 through 2056 for
all TSLs other than 2028 through 2057
for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL
detailed in the Joint Agreement).
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or
amended standards by comparing a case
without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards
case characterizes energy use and
consumer costs for each product class in
the absence of new or amended energy
conservation standards. For this
projection, DOE considers historical
trends in efficiency and various forces
that are likely to affect the mix of
efficiencies over time. DOE compares
the no-new-standards case with
projections characterizing the market for
each product class if DOE adopted new
or amended standards at specific energy
efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or
standards cases) for that class. For the
standards cases, DOE considers how a
given standard would likely affect the
market shares of products with
efficiencies greater than the standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to
calculate the energy savings and the
national consumer costs and savings
from each TSL. Interested parties can
review DOE’s analyses by changing
various input quantities within the
spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet
model uses typical values (as opposed
to probability distributions) as inputs.
Table IV.21 summarizes the inputs
and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the direct final rule.
Discussion of these inputs and methods
follows the table. See chapter 10 of the
direct final rule TSD for further details.
TABLE IV.21—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Inputs
Methods
Shipments .......................................
Compliance Date of Standard ........
Annual shipments from shipments model.
TSL 1, TSL 2, TSL 4, TSL 5, and TSL 6: 2027.
TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL): 2028.
74 Fujita, K. (2015) Estimating Price Elasticity
using Market-Level Appliance Data. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL–188289.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
75 The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states
and U.S. territories.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18195
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18196
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV.21—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS—Continued
Inputs
Methods
Efficiency Trends ............................
No-new-standards case: Annual efficiency improvement of 0.47% for electric standard and 0.02% for vented gas standard consumer clothes dryers.
Standards cases: ‘‘Roll-up’’ equipment to meet potential efficiency level.
Annual weighted average values are a function of energy use at each TSL.
Annual Energy Consumption per
Unit.
Total Installed Cost per Unit ...........
Annual Energy Cost per Unit ..........
Repair and Maintenance Cost per
Unit.
Energy Price Trends .......................
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC
Conversion.
Discount Rate .................................
Present Year ...................................
Annual weighted average values are a function of cost at each TSL.
Incorporates projection of future product prices based on historical data.
Annual weighted average values as a function of the annual energy consumption per-unit and energy
prices.
Annual values change between electromechanical controls and electronic controls efficiency level.
AEO2023 projections (to 2050) and constant value based on the average between 2046 and 2050 thereafter.
A time-series conversion factor based on AEO2023.
3% and 7%.
2024.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
1. Product Efficiency Trends
A key component of the NIA is the
trend in energy efficiency projected for
the no-new-standards case and each of
the standards cases. Section IV.F.8 of
this document describes how DOE
developed an energy efficiency
distribution for the no-new-standards
case (which yields a shipment-weighted
average efficiency) for each of the
considered product classes for the year
of anticipated compliance with an
amended or new standard. To project
the trend in efficiency absent amended
standards for consumer clothes dryers
over the entire shipments projection
period, DOE used an annual 0.47percent and 0.02-percent increase in
shipment-weighted efficiency beginning
in 2021 for electric standard and vented
gas standard consumer clothes dryers,
respectively. The efficiency for the other
product classes remains at their 2021
shipments-weighted efficiency levels.
The approach is further described in
chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD.
For the standards cases, DOE used a
‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the
shipment-weighted efficiency for the
year that standards are assumed to
become effective. In this scenario, the
market shares of products in the nonew-standards case that do not meet the
standard under consideration would
‘‘roll-up’’ to meet the new standard
level, and the market share of products
above the standard would remain
unchanged.
2. National Energy Savings
The national energy savings analysis
involves a comparison of national
energy consumption of the considered
products between each potential
standards case (TSL) and the case with
no-new or amended energy conservation
standards. DOE calculated the national
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
energy consumption by multiplying the
number of units (stock) of each product
(by vintage or age) by the unit energy
consumption (also by vintage). DOE
calculated annual NES based on the
difference in national energy
consumption for the no-new-standards
case and for each higher efficiency
standard case. DOE estimated energy
consumption and savings based on-site
energy and converted the electricity
consumption and savings to primary
energy (i.e., the energy consumed by
power plants to generate site electricity)
using annual conversion factors derived
from AEO2023. Cumulative energy
savings are the sum of the NES for each
year over the timeframe of the analysis.
Use of higher efficiency products is
sometimes associated with a direct
rebound effect, which refers to an
increase in utilization of the product
due to the increase in efficiency. DOE
did not find any data on the rebound
effect specific to consumer clothes
dryers, so it did not include a rebound
effect in the analysis.
Separate from a direct rebound effect,
DOE also assessed the potential
implications of amended standards as it
relates to clothes dryer energy use,
namely whether amended standards
could result in a decrease in drying
performance that would require
consumers to re-run their drying cycles
to achieve satisfactory drying
performance. As discussed in section
II.B.2 of this document, DOE’s appendix
D2 test procedure includes a maximum
FMC threshold (i.e., a dryness level
threshold that much be achieved in
order to be considered a valid test
cycle), which ensures that the rated
energy consumption of clothes dryers is
representative of consumer expectations
for dryness. DOE testing confirmed that
commercially available products
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
achieve this FMC dryness threshold at
each of the efficiency levels considered
in this direct final rule analysis.
Consequently, DOE has determined that
clothes dryers that comply with the
amended standards will provide
consumer-acceptable levels of dryness
corresponding to the rated energy
consumption as measured by appendix
D2. In the NES, therefore, DOE assumed
that the amended standards would not
result in any increase in clothes dryer
usage, such as that arising from
consumers re-running drying cycles.
In 2011, in response to the
recommendations of a committee on
‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle
Measurement Approaches to Energy
Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the
National Academy of Sciences, DOE
announced its intention to use FFC
measures of energy use and greenhouse
gas and other emissions in the national
impact analyses and emissions analyses
included in future energy conservation
standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281
(Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the
approaches discussed in the August 18,
2011, notice, DOE published a statement
of amended policy in which DOE
explained its determination that EIA’s
National Energy Modeling System
(‘‘NEMS’’) is the most appropriate tool
for its FFC analysis and its intention to
use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701
(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public
domain, multi-sector, partial
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy
sector 76 that EIA uses to prepare its
Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors
incorporate losses in production and
delivery in the case of natural gas
76 For more information on NEMS, refer to The
National Energy Modeling System: An Overview
2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm
(last accessed April 20, 2023).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
(including fugitive emissions) and
additional energy used to produce and
deliver the various fuels used by power
plants. The approach used for deriving
FFC measures of energy use and
emissions is described in appendix 10B
of the direct final rule TSD.
For this direct final rule, DOE
considered comments it had received
regarding the methodology for
calculating the national energy savings
that was presented in the August 2022
NOPR. The approach used for this direct
final rule is largely the same approach
DOE had used for the August 2022
NOPR analysis.
In response to the August 2022 NOPR,
EEI stated that in the past, DOE stated
potentially using a captured-energy
approach when estimating upstream
full-fuel-cycle energy savings; however,
EEI noted that in recent notices and
rulemakings, DOE is now overstating
these estimates by using a fossil fuel
equivalent for renewable energy,
significantly overstating the upstream
savings. (EEI, No. 37 at pp. 45–46)
As previously mentioned, DOE
converts electricity consumption and
savings to primary energy and FFC
energy using annual conversion factors
derived from the AEO. Traditionally,
EIA has used the fossil fuel equivalency
approach to report noncombustible
renewables’ contribution to total
primary energy. The fossil fuel
equivalency approach applies an
annualized weighted average heat rate
for fossil fuel power plants to the
electricity generated (in kWh) from
noncombustible renewables. EIA
recognizes that using captured energy
(i.e., the net energy available for direct
consumption after transformation of a
noncombustible renewable energy into
electricity) and using incident energy
(i.e., the mechanical, radiation, or
thermal energy that is measurable as the
‘‘input’’ to the device) are possible
approaches for converting renewable
electricity to a common measure of
primary energy, but it continues to use
the fossil fuel equivalency approach in
the AEO and other reporting of energy
statistics. DOE has used this approach to
accounting for primary energy savings
from energy efficiency standards for the
entirety of the appliance standards
program.
Whirlpool commented that the
lessening of utility and performance of
dryers, including increases to drying
cycle times and potentially increased
fabric damage to clothes, may lead to
corresponding compensatory behavioral
changes from consumers that may result
in lost energy savings. Whirlpool
recommended that DOE’s analysis
account for possible negative rebound
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
effects of changes, such that the
expected energy savings from an
amended standard may not be fully
delivered over the analyzed period.
Whirlpool commented that consumers
associate longer drying times with more
potential damage to their clothes and
may choose cycles or options that
reduce overall drying time at the
expense of energy consumption.
(Whirlpool, No. 53 at p. 6)
DOE has examined the potential
impacts on different attributes of
product performance while considering
amended standards, as detailed in
section IV.C.1 of this document. As
discussed further in section V.B.4 of this
document, DOE data indicate that the
standards adopted by this direct final
rule will not necessitate any substantive
increase in cycle times compared to
typical cycle times currently associated
with baseline consumer clothes dryers
and therefore are not expected to have
any negative impacts on fabric care and
product wear and tear that would lead
consumers to use more energy
consumptive drying cycles. Moreover,
DOE notes that the appendix D2 test
procedure, which will be required to
demonstrate compliance with the
amended standards established in this
direct final rule, and is currently
required for ENERGY STAR
certification, ensures that clothes dryers
provide a consumer-acceptable level of
dryness.
Furthermore, as previously discussed,
on February 14, 2024, DOE received a
second joint statement from the same
group of stakeholders that submitted the
Joint Agreement (including AHAM, of
which Whirlpool is a member) in which
the signatories reaffirmed the standards
recommended in the Joint Agreement.77
In particular, the letter states that the
stakeholders do not anticipate the
recommended standards will negatively
affect features or performance, including
cycle time. In particular, the signatories
stated that because the test procedure
that will be used to determine
compliance with amended standards
(i.e., appendix D2) requires that dryers
meet a threshold for ‘‘final moisture
content’’ in order to be certified as
compliant, this final moisture content
requirement ensures that compliant
clothes dryers will adequately dry
clothes. The signatories further noted
that there are more than 400 electric
clothes dryer models and nearly 200 gas
clothes dryer models that are certified to
the current ENERGY STAR
specification, which is equivalent to the
77 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0058-0058.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18197
recommended standard levels and is
based on appendix D2, and that these
models all meet the final moisture
content threshold specified in appendix
D2. For further discussion of consumer
clothes dryer performance as it relates to
amended standards, see section V.B.4 of
this document.
DOE acknowledges that this
conclusion is contrary to its
assumptions in the final rule that it
published on December 16, 2020
(‘‘December 2020 Final Rule’’). 85 FR
81359. There, DOE assumed that
consumers might need to re-run their
clothes washers or dryers through
multiple cycles ‘‘to adequately clean or
dry their clothing.’’ 85 FR 81365. In this
rulemaking, DOE has found no evidence
suggesting that consumers are running
their dryers multiple times at TSL 3 (i.e.,
the Recommended TSL), which
corresponds to the current ENERGY
STAR efficiency level for both electric
and gas standard clothes dryers. As
supported by data described in section
IV.E of this document, average
consumer usage of electric standard
clothes has steadily declined from 301
cycles per year per dryer in the 2005
RECS to 213 cycles per year per dryer
in the 2020 RECS, and vented gas
standard clothes dryer usage has
declined from 292 cycles in the 2005
RECS to 213 cycles in the 2020 RECS,
while the average household size has
remained essentially unchanged
(average 3 household members) during
the same period. This shows a
significant downward trend in the
average number of cycles run on each
consumer clothes dryer over the past 15
years, even after the implementation of
the current amended standard in 2015.
These data indicate that amended
energy conservation standards have not
resulted in consumers increasing dryer
usage due to amended standards for
consumer clothes dryers.
Given that there is no evidence of any
previous consumer clothes dryer
standard increasing drying cycles per
year, and in fact, instead cycles per year
have decreased over time through
multiple standards, DOE determines
that a standard at the Recommended
TSL would not be expected to lead
consumers to increase their use of
consumer clothes dryers.
3. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV
of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers are (1) total
annual installed cost, (2) total annual
operating costs (energy costs and repair
and maintenance costs), and (3) a
discount factor to calculate the present
value of costs and savings. DOE
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
18198
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
calculates net savings each year as the
difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case
in terms of total savings in operating
costs versus total increases in installed
costs. DOE calculates operating cost
savings over the lifetime of each product
shipped during the projection period.
As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this
document, DOE developed consumer
clothes dryer price trends based on
historical PPI data. DOE applied the
same trends to project prices for each
product class at each considered
efficiency level. By 2057, which is the
end date of the projection period for the
Recommended TSL detailed in Joint
Agreement, the average consumer
clothes dryer (real) price is projected to
drop 18 percent relative to 2022. DOE’s
projection of product prices is described
in appendix 10C of the direct final rule
TSD.
To evaluate the effect of uncertainty
regarding the price trend estimates, DOE
investigated the impact of different
product price projections on the
consumer NPV for the considered TSLs
for consumer clothes dryers. In addition
to the default price trend, DOE
considered two product price sensitivity
cases: (1) a high-price-decline case
based on the combined price index from
1980 to 2022 78 and (2) a constant price
trend at the 2022 value. The derivation
of these price trends and the results of
these sensitivity cases are described in
appendix 10C of the direct final rule
TSD.
The energy cost savings are calculated
using the estimated energy savings in
each year and the projected price of the
appropriate form of energy. To estimate
energy prices in future years, DOE
multiplied the average national energy
prices by the projection of annual
national-average residential energy price
changes in the Reference case from
AEO2023, which has an end year of
2050. To estimate price trends after
2050, the 2046–2050 average was used
for all years. As part of the NIA, DOE
also analyzed scenarios that used inputs
from variants of the AEO2023 Reference
case that have lower and higher
economic growth. Those cases have
lower and higher energy price trends
compared to the Reference case. NIA
results based on these cases are
presented in appendix 10D of the direct
final rule TSD.
In calculating the NPV, DOE
multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine
78 DOE
combined PPI data of ‘‘household laundry
equipment’’ from 1948 to 2016 and PPI data of
‘‘major household appliance: primary products’’
from 2016 to 2022 into one time-series price index
to project future price for consumer clothes dryers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
their present value. For this direct final
rule, DOE estimated the NPV of
consumer benefits using both a 3percent and a 7-percent real discount
rate. DOE uses these discount rates in
accordance with guidance provided by
the OMB to Federal agencies on the
development of regulatory analysis.79
The discount rates for the determination
of NPV are in contrast to the discount
rates used in the LCC analysis, which
are designed to reflect a consumer’s
perspective. The 7-percent real value is
an estimate of the average before-tax rate
of return to private capital in the U.S.
economy. The 3-percent real value
represents the ‘‘social rate of time
preference,’’ which is the rate at which
society discounts future consumption
flows to their present value.
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In analyzing the potential impact of
new or amended energy conservation
standards on consumers, DOE evaluates
the impact on identifiable subgroups of
consumers that may be
disproportionately affected by a new or
amended national standard. The
purpose of a subgroup analysis is to
determine the extent of any such
disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates
impacts on particular subgroups of
consumers by analyzing the LCC
impacts and PBP for those particular
consumers from alternative standard
levels. For this direct final rule, DOE
analyzed the impacts of the considered
standard levels on two subgroups: (1)
low-income households and (2) senioronly households. The analysis used
subsets of the 2020 RECS sample
composed of households that meet the
criteria for the considered subgroups.
DOE used the LCC and PBP spreadsheet
model to estimate the impacts of the
considered efficiency levels on these
subgroups. Chapter 11 in the direct final
rule TSD describes the consumer
subgroup analysis.
For this direct final rule, DOE
considered comments it received
regarding the consumer subgroup
analysis that were submitted in
response to the August 2022 NOPR.
DOE notes that although several of the
comments discussed below are from
AHAM, as previously discussed, on
February 14, 2024, DOE received a
second joint statement from the same
group of stakeholders that submitted the
Joint Agreement (including AHAM) in
which the signatories reaffirmed the
79 U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. Available at
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-foragencies/circulars/ (last accessed April 20, 2023).
DOE used the prior version of Circular A–4 (2003)
as a result of the effective date of the new version.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
standards recommended in the Joint
Agreement.80 In particular, the letter
states that ‘‘the recommended standards
represent the maximum levels of
efficiency that are technologically
feasible and economically justified.’’
(emphasis added).
In response to the August 2022 NOPR,
AHAM stated that in a recent consumer
study conducted by Bellomy Research
for AHAM, low-income households
were at a disadvantage when purchasing
or replacing a laundry appliance, with
many households indicating that they
would have to make financial sacrifices
in other areas of their lives to
accommodate purchasing a dryer.
AHAM stated that over 90 percent of
low-income households cited cost as the
most important factor when deciding to
purchase a dryer, and nearly 75 percent
of low-income households indicated
they would not be willing to pay around
$100 more for a more efficient appliance
at the time of purchase to save
approximately $50–$150 in energy costs
over the lifetime of that appliance.
AHAM stated that one in four lowincome households indicated they
would delay a replacement purchase if
their laundry appliance stopped
working, and in cases of replacement,
they would replace it with another
entry-level/value-tier model.
Additionally, AHAM stated that over
half of low-income households
indicated they would turn to purchasing
a used dryer or apply for assistance.
(AHAM, No. 46 at pp. 6–7). AHAM
stated that standards that result in
increased prices for entry-level
appliances or that price some
consumers out of the clothes dryer
market by eliminating technology
options that allow manufacturers to
produce entry-level models (e.g.,
electromechanical controls) deepen
inequity for underserved communities.
According to AHAM, if low-income
consumers do not have equitable access,
they may forego dryer ownership and
use a laundromat with lost time savings
and additional operating costs, rely on
expensive financing options, or buy an
older and possibly less efficient used
dryer, thus reducing overall savings
potential. (AHAM, No. 46 at pp. 5–6, 8)
AGA and APGA supported AHAM’s
comments on the disproportionate effect
more stringent standards could have on
low-income consumers. (AGA et al., No.
47 at p. 4)
Whirlpool stated that low-income
consumers may not be able to purchase
more efficient dryers due to the
80 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0058-0058.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
significant cost increase and their
inability to pay for very large emergency
purchases over $500. Whirlpool stated
that while there may be some level of
life-cycle cost savings from proposed
standards, consumers who can no
longer afford an entry-level dryer may
never realize these savings. Whirlpool
stated that purchase price increases
driven by DOE’s proposed standards
may drive undesirable consumer
behavior, including repairing the old
dryer or purchasing a used dryer,
effectively keeping older and less
efficient appliances on the grid.
Whirlpool requested that DOE ensure
new appliances remain as affordable to
low-income consumers as possible.
(Whirlpool, No. 53 at pp. 7–8)
NYSERDA stated that amended
standards would significantly improve
energy outcomes for low-income
households and not create additional
burdens. NYSERDA stated that in New
York, there is a relatively even split
between owner-occupied and rented
homes, with a significant number of
rental properties, especially in new
construction, having in-unit consumer
clothes dryers. NYSERDA commented
that for individual renters who are not
responsible for the purchase of their
clothes dryer but who are responsible
for paying their utility bills, amended
standards will provide utility bill
savings without incurring direct
equipment costs. (NYSERDA, No. 48 at
p. 2)
According to the 2020 RECS clothes
dryer sample, approximately 47 percent
of low-income households who have a
dryer are renters. In most cases, the
property owner would purchase a new
dryer. While the owner might seek to
collect some of this cost in rent, the
ability to do so is constrained by lease
agreements and larger market forces that
influence rent levels in particular
locations. Thus, it is reasonable to
conclude that renters would see a
significant net benefit from a higher
efficiency dryer, and this is seen in the
results of DOE’s analysis (see section
V.B.1.b of this document for results of
the consumer subgroup analysis).
Additionally, for this direct final rule,
DOE implemented a scenario assuming
that landlords would pass some of the
incremental clothes dryer costs to
renters in the LCC analysis. The results
indicate that this scenario would not
impact DOE’s decision on adopting the
amended standards. For details of the
sensitivity results, see appendix 11A of
the direct final rule TSD.
In DOE’s analysis, approximately 53
percent of low-income households who
have a dryer are homeowners, who
would be responsible for purchasing a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
new dryer. Given that the average
incremental increase in price for a dryer
meeting the adopted standards (relative
to the baseline model that reflects
current entry-level products) is $27,
DOE believes it is reasonable to
conclude that most low-income
homeowners who could afford to
purchase a new dryer under the current
standard could also afford to purchase
a dryer that meets the new standard,
particularly in the absence of data
indicating otherwise. Furthermore,
DOE’s analysis found that for the largest
product class (i.e., electric standard),
less than 1 percent of low-income
households would experience a net cost
under the adopted standard, but the
majority would see a net benefit (see
section V.B.1.b of this document for
results of the consumer subgroup
analysis).
In total, DOE’s analysis estimated that
45 percent of low-income households
who have a dryer would experience a
net benefit and 54 percent of lowincome households who have a dryer
would have no impact under the
adopted standard.
AHAM comment in response to the
August 2022 NOPR that low-income
consumers might lose equitable access
to on-site dryer usage because of the
amended standards did not include
supporting data so DOE was unable to
fully evaluate the assertion.
Nevertheless, DOE’s shipments analysis
takes into account the market impact
under a standards case. For this direct
final rule, DOE has implemented
scenarios in which affected consumers
would either repair their clothes dryers
or opt to purchase a used one instead of
a new clothes dryer (see section IV.G of
this document).
AHAM recommended that DOE
review all available data sources
regarding low-income households and
appliances to incorporate into its lowincome analysis, in particular the basis
of only differential discount rates.
AHAM commented that DOE’s analysis
is a very myopic view of the effects of
standards on low-income households,
and within this framework the approach
of using average discount rates is
fundamentally flawed in its
understanding of the relationship
between disposable income and balance
sheet rebalancing. (AHAM, No. 46 at p.
8)
DOE’s approach to the low-income
consumer subgroup analysis includes
households that do not have assets or
debts included in the SCF. It is likely
that a majority of these ‘‘unbanked’’
households primarily rely on cash to
complete transactions and as a form of
savings, which is included in the
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18199
distribution of discount rates associated
with low-income consumers.
Consumers that rely entirely on cash are
assigned a discount rate of 0 percent, as
there is no lost opportunity cost from
alternative noncash assets or debts. For
households that utilize nontraditional,
nonbank financing, DOE’s methodology
includes a distribution of high discount
rates (i.e., >10% percent), which are
representative of the opportunity cost
associated with nonbank lines of credit.
Therefore, DOE determined that this
comprehensive approach enables a fair
assessment of discount rates for lowincome consumers who have different
financial situations.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
DOE performed an MIA to estimate
the financial impacts of amended energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of consumer clothes
dryers and to estimate the potential
impacts of such standards on direct
employment and manufacturing
capacity. The MIA has both quantitative
and qualitative aspects and includes
analyses of projected industry cash
flows, the INPV, investments in research
and development (‘‘R&D’’) and
manufacturing capital, and domestic
manufacturing employment.
Additionally, the MIA seeks to
determine how amended energy
conservation standards might affect
manufacturing employment, capacity,
and competition, as well as how
standards contribute to overall
regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA
serves to identify any disproportionate
impacts on manufacturer subgroups,
including small business manufacturers.
The quantitative part of the MIA
primarily relies on the GRIM, an
industry cash flow model with inputs
specific to this rulemaking. The key
GRIM inputs include data on the
industry cost structure, unit production
costs, product shipments, manufacturer
markups, and investments in R&D and
manufacturing capital required to
produce compliant products. The key
GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is
the sum of industry annual cash flows
over the analysis period, discounted
using the industry-weighted average
cost of capital, and the impact on
domestic manufacturing employment.
The model uses standard accounting
principles to estimate the impacts of
more stringent energy conservation
standards on a given industry by
comparing changes in INPV and
domestic manufacturing employment
between a no-new-standards case and
the various standards cases. To capture
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18200
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
the uncertainty relating to manufacturer
pricing strategies following amended
standards, the GRIM estimates a range of
possible impacts under different
markup scenarios.
The qualitative part of the MIA
addresses manufacturer characteristics
and market trends. Specifically, the MIA
considers such factors as a potential
standard’s impact on manufacturing
capacity, competition within the
industry, the cumulative impact of other
DOE and non-DOE regulations, and
impacts on manufacturer subgroups.
The complete MIA is outlined in
chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
DOE conducted the MIA for this
rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1
of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of
the consumer clothes dryer
manufacturing industry based on the
market and technology assessment,
preliminary manufacturer interviews,
and publicly available information. This
included a top-down analysis of
consumer clothes dryer manufacturers
that DOE used to derive preliminary
financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g.,
revenues; materials, labor, overhead,
and depreciation expenses; selling,
general, and administrative expenses
(‘‘SG&A’’); and R&D expenses). DOE
also used public sources of information
to further calibrate its initial
characterization of the consumer clothes
dryer manufacturing industry, including
company filings of form 10–K from the
SEC,81 corporate annual reports, the
U.S. Census Bureau’s Quarterly Survey
of Plant Capacity Utilization,82 the U.S.
Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of
Manufactures (‘‘ASM’’),83 and reports
from Dun & Bradstreet.84
In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared
a framework industry cash-flow analysis
to quantify the potential impacts of
amended energy conservation
standards. The GRIM uses several
factors to determine a series of annual
cash flows starting with the
announcement of the standard and
extending over a 30-year period
following the compliance date of the
standard. These factors include annual
expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A
81 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Company Filings. Available at www.sec.gov/edgar/
searchedgar/companysearch.html. (Last accessed
June 6, 2023).
82 U.S. Census Bureau. Quarterly Survey of Plant
Capacity Utilization. Available at www.census.gov/
programs-surveys/qpc/data/tables.html (last
accessed June 1, 2023).
83 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of
Manufactures. Available at www.census.gov/
programs-surveys/asm/data/tables.html (last
accessed June 1, 2023).
84 The Dun & Bradstreet subscription login is
available at app.dnbhoovers.com (last accessed June
8, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital
expenditures. In general, energy
conservation standards can affect
manufacturer cash flow in three distinct
ways: (1) creating a need for increased
investment, (2) raising production costs
per-unit, and (3) altering revenue due to
higher per-unit prices and changes in
sales volumes.
In addition, during Phase 2, DOE
developed interview guides to distribute
to manufacturers of consumer clothes
dryers in order to develop other key
GRIM inputs, including product and
capital conversion costs, and to gather
additional information on the
anticipated effects of energy
conservation standards on revenues,
direct employment, capital assets,
industry competitiveness, and subgroup
impacts.
In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE
conducted structured, detailed
interviews with representative
manufacturers. During these interviews,
DOE discussed engineering,
manufacturing, procurement, and
financial topics to validate assumptions
used in the GRIM and to identify key
issues or concerns. As part of Phase 3,
DOE also evaluated subgroups of
manufacturers that may be
disproportionately impacted by
amended standards or that may not be
accurately represented by the average
cost assumptions used to develop the
industry cash flow analysis. Such
manufacturer subgroups may include
small business manufacturers, lowvolume manufacturers, niche players,
and/or manufacturers exhibiting a cost
structure that largely differs from the
industry average. DOE identified one
subgroup for a separate impact analysis:
small business manufacturers. The
small business subgroup is discussed in
chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
year.85 DOE calculated INPVs by
summing the stream of annual
discounted cash flows during this
period. For manufacturers of consumer
clothes dryers, DOE used a real discount
rate of 7.5 percent, which was derived
from industry financials and then
modified according to feedback received
during manufacturer interviews.
The GRIM calculates cash flows using
standard accounting principles and
compares changes in INPV between the
no-new-standards case and each
standards case. The difference in INPV
between the no-new-standards case and
a standards case represents the financial
impact of the amended energy
conservation standard on
manufacturers. As discussed previously,
DOE developed the critical GRIM inputs
using a number of sources, including
publicly available data, results of the
engineering analysis and shipments
analysis, and information gathered from
industry stakeholders during the course
of manufacturer interviews. The GRIM
results are presented in section V.B.2 of
this document. Additional details about
the GRIM, the discount rate, and other
financial parameters can be found in
chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model
and Key Inputs
b. Shipments Projections
The GRIM estimates manufacturer
revenues based on total unit shipment
projections and the distribution of those
shipments by efficiency level. Changes
in sales volumes and efficiency mix
over time can significantly affect
manufacturer finances. For this analysis,
the GRIM uses the NIA’s annual
shipment projections derived from the
shipments analysis from the base year
(2024) to the end year of the analysis
period (30 years from the analyzed
compliance date 86). See section IV.G of
DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the
changes in cash flow due to amended
standards that result in a higher or
lower industry value. The GRIM uses a
standard, annual discounted cash-flow
analysis that incorporates manufacturer
costs, manufacturer markups,
shipments, and industry financial
information as inputs. The GRIM
models changes in costs, distribution of
shipments, investments, and
manufacturer margins that could result
from an amended energy conservation
standard. The GRIM spreadsheet uses
the inputs to arrive at a series of annual
cash flows, beginning in 2024 (the base
year of the analysis) and continuing 30
years from the analyzed compliance
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
Manufacturing more efficient
products is typically more expensive
than manufacturing baseline products
due to the use of more complex
components, which are typically more
costly than baseline components. The
changes in MPCs of covered products
can affect the revenues, gross margins,
and cash flow of the industry. DOE
models the relationship between
efficiency and MPCs as a part of its
engineering analysis. For a complete
description of the MPCs, see section
IV.C of this document and chapter 5 of
the direct final rule TSD.
85 For the no-new-standards case and all TSLs
except the Recommended TSL (i.e., TSL 3), the
analysis period ranges from 2024–2056. For the
Recommended TSL, the analysis period ranges from
2024–2057.
86 Id.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
this document and chapter 9 of the
direct final rule TSD for additional
details.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs
Amended energy conservation
standards could cause manufacturers to
incur conversion costs to bring their
production facilities and product
designs into compliance. DOE evaluated
the level of conversion-related
expenditures that would be needed to
comply with each considered efficiency
level in each product class. For the MIA,
DOE classified these conversion costs
into two major groups: (1) capital
conversion costs and (2) product
conversion costs. Capital conversion
costs are investments in property, plant,
and equipment necessary to adapt or
change existing production facilities
such that new compliant product
designs can be fabricated and
assembled. Product conversion costs are
investments in research, development,
testing, marketing, and other noncapitalized costs necessary to make
product designs comply with amended
energy conservation standards.
DOE relied on manufacturer feedback
to evaluate the level of capital and
product conversion costs manufacturers
would likely incur at the various TSLs.
During confidential interviews, DOE
asked manufacturers to estimate the
capital conversion costs (e.g., changes in
production processes, equipment, and
tooling) to meet the various efficiency
levels. DOE also asked manufacturers to
estimate the redesign effort and
engineering resources required at
various efficiency levels to quantify the
product conversion costs. Based on
manufacturer feedback, DOE also
estimated ‘‘re-flooring’’ costs associated
with replacing obsolete display models
in big-box stores (e.g., Lowe’s, Home
Depot, Best Buy) due to higher
standards. Some manufacturers stated
that with a new product release, big-box
retailers discount outdated display
models, and manufacturers share any
losses associated with discounting the
retail price. The estimated re-flooring
costs for each efficiency level were
incorporated into the product
conversion cost estimates, as DOE
modeled the re-flooring costs as a
marketing expense.
DOE reviewed the DOE CCD,87 U.S.
market share estimates, and company
characteristics to scale the companyspecific conversion cost estimates to
levels that represent the overall
87 U.S. Department of Energy’s Compliance
Certification Database is available at
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (last
accessed April 28, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
industry. First, DOE used data from its
CCD,88 the ENERGY STAR-qualified
product database,89 and the California
Energy Commission database 90 to
identify original equipment
manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) of the covered
products. Next, DOE assessed each
OEM’s U.S. market share and product
profile (e.g., estimated sales by product
class and efficiency) for consumer
clothes dryers. Finally, DOE estimated
industry-level conversion cost estimates
by scaling feedback from OEMs based
on a combination of product offerings
and U.S. market share estimates.
DOE adjusted the conversion cost
estimates developed in support of the
August 2022 NOPR to 2022$ for this
analysis. DOE also estimated industry
costs associated with appendix D2, as
finalized in the October 2021 TP Final
Rule. 86 FR 56608.
In general, DOE assumes all
conversion-related investments occur
between the year of publication of the
final rule and the year by which
manufacturers must comply with the
new standard. The conversion cost
figures used in the GRIM can be found
in section V.B.2.a of this document. For
additional information on the estimated
capital and product conversion costs,
see chapter 12 of the direct final rule
TSD.
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
MSPs include direct manufacturing
production costs (i.e., labor, materials,
and overhead estimated in DOE’s MPCs)
and all non-production costs (i.e.,
SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with
profit. To calculate the MSPs in the
GRIM, DOE applied manufacturer
markups to the MPCs estimated in the
engineering analysis for each product
class and efficiency level. Modifying
these markups in the standards case
yields different sets of impacts on
manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE
modeled two standards-case scenarios
to represent uncertainty regarding the
potential impacts on prices and
profitability for manufacturers following
the implementation of amended energy
conservation standards: (1) a
preservation of gross margin percentage
scenario and (2) a preservation-ofoperating profit scenario. These
scenarios lead to different manufacturer
markup values that, when applied to the
88 Id.
89 ENERGY STAR Product Finder data set,
available at www.energystar.gov/productfinder (last
accessed April 28, 2023).
90 California Energy Commission Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System, available at
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/
AdvancedSearch.aspx (last accessed April 28,
2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18201
MPCs, result in varying revenue and
cash flow impacts.
Under the preservation of gross
margin percentage scenario, DOE
applied a single uniform ‘‘gross margin
percentage’’ across all efficiency levels,
which assumes that manufacturers
would be able to maintain the same
amount of profit as a percentage of
revenues at all efficiency levels within
a product class. As manufacturer
production costs increase with
efficiency, this scenario implies that the
per-unit dollar profit will increase. DOE
assumed a gross margin percentage of
approximately 21 percent for all product
classes.91 Manufacturers tend to believe
it is optimistic to assume that they
would be able to maintain the same
gross margin percentage as their
production costs increase, particularly
for minimally efficient products.
Therefore, this scenario represents a
high bound to industry profitability
under an amended energy conservation
standard.
Under the preservation of operating
profit scenario, DOE modeled a
situation in which manufacturers are
not able to increase per-unit operating
profit in proportion to increases in
manufacturer production costs. DOE
implemented this scenario in the GRIM
by lowering the manufacturer markups
at each TSL to yield approximately the
same earnings before interest and taxes
in the standards case as in the no-newstandards case in the year after the
compliance date of the amended
standards. The implicit assumption
behind this scenario is that the industry
can only maintain its operating profit in
absolute dollars after the standard.
A comparison of industry financial
impacts under the two manufacturer
markup scenarios is presented in
section V.B.2.a of this document.
3. Discussion of MIA Comments
For this direct final rule, DOE
considered comments it had received
regarding its manufacturer impact
analysis presented in the August 2022
NOPR. The approach used for this direct
final rule is largely the same as the
approach DOE had used for the August
2022 NOPR analysis.
AHAM requested that DOE confirm it
has fully included all costs that
manufacturers would face in
compliance to assure that the financial
effects on manufacturers are not
excessive. (AHAM, No. 46 at p. 11)
As discussed in section IV.J.2.c of this
document, DOE primarily relied on
manufacturer feedback to estimate the
91 The gross margin percentage of 21 percent is
based on a manufacturer markup of 1.26.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
18202
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
capital and product conversion costs
that manufacturers would likely incur at
the various analyzed efficiency levels.
DOE did not receive additional feedback
about its conversion cost estimates
published in the August 2022 NOPR.
Therefore, DOE did not significantly
alter its conversion cost methodology in
evaluating this direct final rule. DOE
adjusted the conversion cost estimates
developed in support of the NOPR to
2022$ for this analysis. Additionally, for
this direct final rule, DOE updated its
product conversion cost estimates to
incorporate the estimated industry costs
associated with rerating basic models in
accordance with appendix D2. 86 FR
56608.
AHAM stated that if DOE is to
consider amending energy conservation
standards, it must incorporate into its
analysis the challenges manufacturers
are facing regarding the COVID–19
pandemic and increased tariffs. AHAM
commented that DOE cannot simply
rely on its previous analysis regarding
component costs. (AHAM, No. 46 at pp.
13–14)
For this direct final rule, DOE
updated its engineering analysis to
incorporate up-to-date cost estimates.
Increased costs associated with recent
supply chain challenges stemming from
the COVID–19 pandemic have been
incorporated into the cost analysis by
way of 5-year moving averages for
materials and the most up-to-date costs
for purchased parts.
AHAM stated that there will be an
additional design cycle for either or
both clothes washers and clothes dryers
if the effective dates for the two
products are out of sync. AHAM stated
that the existing DOE analysis does not
capture this situation, which creates a
significant technical and financial
burden on manufacturers. (AHAM, No.
46 at p. 11) AHAM stated its support for
the ongoing Peer Review process
regarding cumulative regulatory burden
and stated that DOE should not discount
the time and resources needed to
evaluate and respond to all proposed
test procedures and energy conservation
standards for multiple products
proposed over a short period. AHAM
commented that when these
rulemakings occur simultaneously, the
cumulative burden increases
dramatically. (AHAM, No. 46 at p. 13)
DOE notes that it is adopting the
Recommended TSL in this direct final
rule. The Joint Agreement included
recommendations for other appliance
standards rulemakings: residential
clothes washers; consumer clothes
dryers; consumer conventional cooking
products; dishwashers; refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
miscellaneous refrigeration products.
The signatories indicate that the Joint
Agreement for the six rulemakings
should be considered as a joint
recommendation of standards, to be
adopted in its entirety. (Joint
Agreement, No. 55 at p. 3) The Joint
Agreement specifies a compliance date
of March 1, 2028 for both residential
clothes washers and consumer clothes
dryers. Therefore, DOE did not adjust its
conversion cost estimates to account for
the time and investments associated
with an additional design cycle as DOE
assumed the compliance dates for
residential clothes washers and
consumer clothes dryers would align.
AHAM urged DOE to incorporate the
financial results of the current
cumulative regulatory burden analysis
directly into the MIA and stated that
this is achievable by adding the
combined costs of complying with
multiple regulations into the Product
Conversion Costs in the GRIM model
and including the costs to
manufacturers of responding to and
monitoring regulations. (AHAM, No. 46
at p. 11) AHAM requested that DOE
explicitly recognize the industry effects
of multiple regulations issued within a
short period of time on the same
product. AHAM stated that the MIA
inherently assumes the regulation
analyzed in the INPV analysis is a single
event (investment) and that all other
cash flows are unaffected by this
regulation. In addition, AHAM stated
that when there are multiple regulations
on the same product within the 6-year
lock-in period, the second regulation
violates the recoupment assumption
inherent in the first one, which is not
considered by the GRIM model. AHAM
stated that DOE could resolve this by
conducting a consolidated analysis for
multiple regulations starting from the
time of the first regulation or by
incorporating a value reduction factor in
the first post-regulation year of the
analysis that subtracts the value lost
from the remaining years of the previous
regulation. (Id. at pp. 11–12)
If DOE were to combine the
conversion costs from multiple
regulations, as requested, it would be
appropriate to match the combined
conversion costs with the combined
revenues of the regulated products. DOE
is concerned that combined results
would make it more difficult to discern
the direct impact of the amended
standard on covered manufacturers,
particularly for rulemakings where there
is only partial overlap of manufacturers.
Conversion costs would be spread over
a larger revenue base and result in less
severe INPV impacts when evaluated on
a percent change basis. Furthermore,
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
DOE is not aware of other Federal,
product-specific regulations on
consumer clothes dryers that would go
into effect 3 years before or after the
2028 compliance date. DOE understands
that if the effective dates of the
consumer clothes dryer and residential
clothes washer amended standards were
misaligned, there could be additional
development and marketing costs
associated with aligning the design
cycles of these products, as clothes
dryers and clothes washers are typically
designed and sold in pairs. However,
DOE did not account for any additional
development cost associated with this
potential regulatory burden, as DOE
modeled the recommended March 1,
2028 compliance date from the Joint
Agreement for both rulemakings.
AHAM urged DOE to weigh in against
regulatory misalignment with Natural
Resources Canada (‘‘NRCan’’) through
the United States-Canada Regulatory
Cooperation Council work plan on
energy efficiency and under the
Memorandum of Understanding
(‘‘MOU’’) on energy cooperation. AHAM
also urged DOE to account for the
burden of any misalignment in its
analysis. According to AHAM, it is
critical that amended standards are
coordinated with NRCan, in both
substance and timing, to maintain a
consistent United States-Canadian
market for home appliances. (AHAM,
No. 46 at p. 13)
As part of the analysis underlying the
energy conservation standards for
consumer clothes dryers, DOE considers
and reviews standards programs from
other regions. As part of this effort, DOE
considers regulatory actions undertaken
by NRCan and notes that per a notice
published on April 2, 2022 in the
Canada Gazette, Part I,92 NRCan is
currently proceeding with preconsultations to align the energy
efficiency and testing standard for five
home appliance categories including
consumer clothes dryer with the
outcomes of the current DOE regulatory
efforts. Further detail regarding DOE’s
review of the NRCan regulatory actions
and those in other regions are discussed
in chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD.
K. Emissions Analysis
The emissions analysis consists of
two components. The first component
estimates the effect of potential energy
conservation standards on power sector
and site (where applicable) combustion
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg.
The second component estimates the
92 The notice published in the Canada Gazette,
Part I can be found at: gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2022/
2022-04-02/html/notice-avis-eng.html#ne4.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
impacts of potential standards on
emissions of two additional greenhouse
gases, CH4 and N2O, as well as the
reductions in emissions of other gases
due to ‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel
production chain. These upstream
activities comprise extraction,
processing, and transporting fuels to the
site of combustion.
The analysis of electric power sector
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg
uses emissions intended to represent the
marginal impacts of the change in
electricity consumption associated with
amended or new standards. The
methodology is based on results
published for the AEO, including a set
of side cases that implement a variety of
efficiency-related policies. The
methodology is described in appendix
13A in the direct final rule TSD. The
analysis presented in this notice uses
projections from AEO2023. Power sector
emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel
combustion are estimated using
Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas
Inventories published by the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).93
The on-site operation of consumer
clothes dryers involves combustion of
fossil fuels and results in emissions of
CO2, NOX, SO2, CH4, and N2O where
these products are used. Site emissions
of these gases were estimated using
Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas
Inventories and, for NOX and SO2,
emissions intensity factors from an EPA
publication.94
FFC upstream emissions, which
include emissions from fuel combustion
during extraction, processing, and
transportation of fuels, and ‘‘fugitive’’
emissions (direct leakage to the
atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2, are
estimated based on the methodology
described in chapter 15 of the direct
final rule TSD.
The emissions intensity factors are
expressed in terms of physical units per
MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings.
For power sector emissions, specific
emissions intensity factors are
calculated by sector and end use. Total
emissions reductions are estimated
using the energy savings calculated in
the national impact analysis.
93 Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_
apr2021.pdf (last accessed April 6, 2023).
94 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
External Combustion Sources. In Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors. AP–42. Fifth Edition.
Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources.
Chapter 1. Available at www.epa.gov/air-emissionsfactors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-airemissions-factors#Proposed/ (last accessed May 26,
2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated
in DOE’s Analysis
18203
However, beginning in 2016, SO2
emissions began to fall as a result of the
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
DOE’s no-new-standards case for the
(‘‘MATS’’) for power plants. 77 FR 9304
electric power sector reflects the AEO,
(Feb. 16, 2012). The direct final rule
which incorporates the projected
establishes power plant emission
impacts of existing air quality
standards for mercury, acid gases, and
regulations on emissions. AEO2023
non-mercury metallic toxic pollutants.
generally represents current legislation
In order to continue operating, coal
and environmental regulations,
plants must have either flue gas
including recent government actions,
desulfurization or dry sorbent injection
that were in place at the time of
systems installed. Both technologies,
preparation of AEO2023, including the
which are used to reduce acid gas
emissions control programs discussed in emissions, also reduce SO emissions.
2
95
the following paragraphs.
Because of the emissions reductions
SO2 emissions from affected electric
under the MATS, it is unlikely that
generating units (‘‘EGUs’’) are subject to excess SO2 emissions allowances
nationwide and regional emissions cap- resulting from the lower electricity
and-trade programs. Title IV of the
demand would be needed or used to
Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions
permit offsetting increases in SO2
cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48
emissions by another regulated EGU.
contiguous States and the District of
Therefore, energy conservation
Columbia (‘‘DC’’). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et
standards that decrease electricity
seq.) SO2 emissions from numerous
generation will generally reduce SO2
States in the eastern half of the United
emissions. DOE estimated SO2
States are also limited under the Crossemissions reduction using emissions
State Air Pollution Rule (‘‘CSAPR’’). 76
factors based on AEO2023.
FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR
CSAPR also established limits on NOX
requires these States to reduce certain
emissions for numerous States in the
emissions, including annual SO2
eastern half of the United States. Energy
emissions, and went into effect as of
conservation standards would have
January 1, 2015.96 AEO2023 incorporates little effect on NOX emissions in those
implementation of CSAPR, including
States covered by CSAPR emissions
the update to the CSAPR ozone season
limits if excess NOX emissions
allowances resulting from the lower
program emission budgets and target
electricity demand could be used to
dates issued in 2016. 81 FR 74504 (Oct.
permit offsetting increases in NOX
26, 2016). Compliance with CSAPR is
emissions from other EGUs. In such
flexible among EGUs and is enforced
case, NOX emissions would remain near
through the use of tradable emissions
the limit even if electricity generation
allowances. Under existing EPA
goes down. Depending on the
regulations, for states subject to SO2
configuration of the power sector in the
emissions limits under CSAPR, any
different regions and the need for
excess SO2 emissions allowances
allowances, however, NOX emissions
resulting from the lower electricity
might not remain at the limit in the case
demand caused by the adoption of an
of lower electricity demand. That would
efficiency standard could be used to
mean that standards might reduce NOX
permit offsetting increases in SO2
emissions in covered States. Despite this
emissions by another regulated EGU.
possibility, DOE has chosen to be
conservative in its analysis and has
95 For further information, see the Assumptions to
maintained the assumption that
AEO2023 report that sets forth the major
assumptions used to generate the projections in the
standards will not reduce NOX
Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/
emissions in States covered by CSAPR.
outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed May 26,
Standards would be expected to reduce
2023).
NOX emissions in the States not covered
96 CSAPR requires states to address annual
by CSAPR. DOE used AEO2023 data to
emissions of SO2 and NOX, precursors to the
formation of fine particulate matter (‘‘PM2.5’’)
derive NOX emissions factors for the
pollution, in order to address the interstate
group of States not covered by CSAPR.
transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 and
The MATS limit mercury emissions
2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
from power plants, but they do not
(‘‘NAAQS’’). CSAPR also requires certain states to
address the ozone season (May–September)
include emissions caps and, as such,
emissions of NOX, a precursor to the formation of
DOE’s energy conservation standards
ozone pollution, in order to address the interstate
would be expected to slightly reduce Hg
transport of ozone pollution with respect to the
emissions. DOE estimated mercury
1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011).
EPA subsequently issued a supplemental rule that
emissions reduction using emissions
included an additional five states in the CSAPR
factors based on AEO2023, which
ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011)
incorporates the MATS.
(Supplemental Rule), and EPA issued the CSAPR
EEI stated that the emissions
Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504
(Oct. 26, 2016).
estimates are significantly overstated
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18204
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
with the passage of the Inflation
Reduction Act (‘‘IRA’’). EEI
recommended that DOE update the
analysis to account for the IRA and all
the impacts in terms of the significantly
increased use of renewable electricity as
well as the increase in the number of
utilities that have stated zero carbon
electricity can be attained within the
next 15 to 25 years. (EEI, No. 37 at pp.
54–55)
As previously stated, for the direct
final rule DOE used the AEO2023
Reference case, which includes the IRA,
to represent the electric power sector
over the coming decades. The AEO2023
Reference case reflects EIA’s view of the
most likely uptake of IRA tax credits,
and it assumes qualified technologies
receive the base tax credit and some
bonus credits. The IRA provisions, in
combination with other policies and
market forces, push wind and solar to
56 percent of electricity generation by
2050. DOE estimated emissions
reductions from the adopted standards
relative to this case.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
As part of the development of this
direct final rule, for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of
Executive Order 12866, DOE considered
the estimated monetary benefits from
the reduced emissions of CO2, CH4,
N2O, NOX, and SO2 that are expected to
result from each of the TSLs considered.
In order to make this calculation
analogous to the calculation of the NPV
of consumer benefit, DOE considered
the reduced emissions expected to
result over the lifetime of products
shipped in the projection period for
each TSL. This section summarizes the
basis for the values used for monetizing
the emissions benefits and presents the
values considered in this direct final
rule.
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.
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
DOE estimates the monetized benefits
of the reductions in emissions of CO2,
CH4, and N2O by using a measure of the
SC of each pollutant (e.g., social costs of
greenhouse gases ‘‘SC–CO2’’). These
estimates represent the monetary value
’’ of the net harm to society associated
with a marginal increase in emissions of
these pollutants in a given year, or the
benefit of avoiding that increase. These
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
estimates are intended to include (but
are not limited to) climate changerelated changes in net agricultural
productivity, human health, property
damages from increased flood risk,
disruption of energy systems, risk of
conflict, environmental migration, and
the value of ecosystem services.
DOE exercises its own judgment in
presenting monetized climate benefits
as recommended by applicable
Executive orders, and DOE would reach
the same conclusion presented in this
rulemaking in the absence of the social
cost of greenhouse gases. That is, the
SC–CO2, whether measured using the
February 2021 interim estimates
presented by the Interagency Working
Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases or by another means, did not
affect the rule ultimately proposed by
DOE.
DOE estimated the global social
benefits of CO2, CH4, and N2O
reductions using SC–GHG values that
were based on the interim values
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.
The SC–GHG is the monetary value of
the net harm to society associated with
a marginal increase in emissions in a
given year, or the benefit of avoiding
that increase. In principle, the SC–GHG
includes the value of all climate change
impacts, including (but not limited to)
changes in net agricultural productivity,
human health effects, property damage
from increased flood risk and natural
disasters, disruption of energy systems,
risk of conflict, environmental
migration, and the value of ecosystem
services. The SC–GHG therefore reflects
the societal value of reducing emissions
of the gas in question by one metric ton.
The SC–GHG is the theoretically
appropriate value to use in conducting
benefit-cost analyses of policies that
affect CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions. As
a member of the IWG involved in the
development of the February 2021 SC–
GHG TSD, DOE agrees that the interim
SC–GHG estimates represent the most
appropriate estimate of the SC–GHG for
this rule, which was developed using
the interim estimates. DOE continues to
evaluate recent developments in the
scientific literature, including the
updated SC–GHG estimates published
by the EPA in December 2023 within
their rulemaking on oil and natural gas
sector sources.97 For this rulemaking,
DOE used these updated SC–GHG
97 Available at www.epa.gov/system/files/
documents/2023-12/eo12866_oil-and-gas-nsps-egclimate-review-2060-av16-final-rule-20231130.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
values to conduct a sensitivity analysis
of the value of GHG emissions
reductions associated with alternative
standards for clothes dryers (see section
IV.L.1.c of this document).
The SC–GHG estimates presented
here were developed over many years,
using peer-reviewed methodologies, a
transparent process, the best science
available at the time of that process, and
input from the public. Specifically, in
2009, the IWG, which included DOE
and other executive branch agencies and
offices, was established to ensure that
agencies were using the best available
science and to promote consistency in
the SC–CO2 values used across agencies.
The IWG published SC–CO2 estimates
in 2010 that were developed from an
ensemble of three widely cited
integrated assessment models (‘‘IAMs’’)
that estimate global climate damages
using highly aggregated representations
of climate processes and the global
economy combined into a single
modeling framework. The three IAMs
were run using a common set of input
assumptions in each model for future
population, economic, and CO2
emissions growth, as well as
equilibrium climate sensitivity—a
measure of the globally averaged
temperature response to increased
atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These
estimates were updated in 2013 based
on new versions of each IAM. In August
2016 the IWG published estimates of the
social cost of methane (‘‘SC–CH4’’) and
nitrous oxide (‘‘SC–N2O’’) using
methodologies that are consistent with
the methodology underlying the SC–
CO2 estimates. The modeling approach
that extends the IWG SC–CO2
methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has
undergone multiple stages of peer
review. The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O
estimates were developed by Marten et
al.98 and underwent a standard doubleblind peer review process prior to
journal publication. In 2015, as part of
the response to public comments
received following a 2013 solicitation
for comments on the SC–CO2 estimates,
the IWG announced a National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine review of the SC–CO2
estimates to offer advice on how to
approach future updates to ensure that
the estimates continue to reflect the best
available science and methodologies. In
January 2017, the National Academies
released their final report, Valuing
Climate Damages: Updating Estimation
98 Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C.
Newbold, and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and
N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S.
Government’s SC–CO2 estimates. Climate Policy.
2015. 15(2): pp. 272–298.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide,
and recommended specific criteria for
future updates to the SC–CO2 estimates,
a modeling framework to satisfy the
specified criteria, and both near-term
updates and longer-term research needs
pertaining to various components of the
estimation process (National
Academies, 2017).99 Shortly thereafter,
in March 2017, President Trump issued
Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 13783, which
disbanded the IWG, withdrew the
previous TSDs, and directed agencies to
ensure SC–CO2 estimates used in
regulatory analyses are consistent with
the guidance contained in OMB’s
Circular A–4,100 ‘‘including with respect
to the consideration of domestic versus
international impacts and the
consideration of appropriate discount
rates’’ (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)).
Benefit-cost analyses following E.O.
13783 used SC–GHG estimates that
attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific
share of climate change damages as
estimated by the models and were
calculated using two discount rates
recommended by Circular A–4, 3
percent and 7 percent. All other
methodological decisions and model
versions used in SC–GHG calculations
remained the same as those used by the
IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively.
On January 20, 2021, President Biden
issued Executive Order 13990, which reestablished the IWG and directed it to
ensure that the U.S. Government’s
estimates of the social cost of carbon
and other greenhouse gases reflect the
best available science and the
recommendations of the National
Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked
with first reviewing the SC–GHG
estimates currently used in Federal
analyses and publishing interim
estimates within 30 days of E.O. 13990
that reflect the full impact of GHG
emissions, including by taking global
damages into account. The interim SC–
GHG estimates published in February
2021 are used here to estimate the
climate benefits for this rulemaking.
E.O. 13990 instructs the IWG to
undertake a fuller update of the SC–
GHG estimates by January 2022 that
takes into consideration the advice of
the National Academies (2017) and
other recent scientific literature. The
February 2021 SC–GHG TSD provides a
99 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating
Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide.
2017. The National Academies Press: Washington,
DC.
100 U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. Available at
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-foragencies/circulars/ (last accessed April 20, 2023).
DOE used the prior version of Circular A–4 (2003)
as a result of the effective date of the new version.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
complete discussion of the IWG’s initial
review conducted under E.O. 13990. In
particular, the IWG found that the SC–
GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783
fail to reflect the full impact of GHG
emissions in multiple ways.
First, the IWG found that the SC–GHG
estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to
fully capture many climate impacts that
affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and
residents, and those impacts are better
reflected by global measures of the SC–
GHG. Examples of omitted effects from
the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct
effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and
investments located abroad; supply
chains, U.S. military assets and interests
abroad, and tourism; and spillover
pathways such as economic and
political destabilization and global
migration that can lead to adverse
impacts on U.S. national security,
public health, and humanitarian
concerns. In addition, assessing the
benefits of United States GHG
mitigation activities requires
consideration of how those actions may
affect mitigation activities by other
countries, as those international
mitigation actions will provide a benefit
to United States citizens and residents
by mitigating climate impacts that affect
United States citizens and residents. A
wide range of scientific and economic
experts have emphasized the issue of
reciprocity as support for considering
global damages of GHG emissions. If the
United States does not consider impacts
on other countries, it is difficult to
convince other countries to consider the
impacts of their emissions on the United
States. The only way to achieve an
efficient allocation of resources for
emissions reduction on a global basis—
and so benefit the United States and its
citizens—is for all countries to base
their policies on global estimates of
damages. As a member of the IWG
involved in the development of the
February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, DOE
agrees with this assessment and,
therefore, in this direct final rule DOE
centers attention on a global measure of
SC–GHG. This approach is the same as
that taken in DOE regulatory analyses
from 2012 through 2016. A robust
estimate of climate damages that accrue
only to U.S. citizens and residents does
not currently exist in the literature. As
explained in the February 2021 TSD,
existing estimates are both incomplete
and an underestimate of total damages
that accrue to the citizens and residents
of the U.S. because they do not fully
capture the regional interactions and
spillovers previously discussed, nor do
they include all of the important
physical, ecological, and economic
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18205
impacts of climate change recognized in
the climate change literature. As noted
in the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the
IWG will continue to review
developments in the literature,
including more robust methodologies
for estimating a U.S.-specific SC–GHG
value, and explore ways to better inform
the public of the full range of carbon
impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE
will continue to follow developments in
the literature pertaining to this issue.
Second, the IWG found that the use of
the social rate of return on capital (7
percent under current OMB Circular A–
4 guidance) to discount the future
benefits of reducing GHG emissions
inappropriately underestimates the
impacts of climate change for the
purposes of estimating the SC–GHG.
Consistent with the findings of the
National Academies (2017) and the
economic literature, the IWG continued
to conclude that the consumption rate of
interest is the theoretically appropriate
discount rate in an intergenerational
context 101 and recommended that
discount rate uncertainty and relevant
aspects of intergenerational ethical
considerations be accounted for in
selecting future discount rates.
Furthermore, the damage estimates
developed for use in the SC–GHG are
estimated in consumption-equivalent
terms, and so an application of OMB
Circular A–4’s guidance for regulatory
analysis would then use the
consumption discount rate to calculate
the SC–GHG. DOE agrees with this
assessment and will continue to follow
101 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Carbon, United States Government. Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order
12866. 2010. Available at www.epa.gov/sites/
default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf
(last accessed April 15, 2022); Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States
Government. Technical Support Document:
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order
12866. 2013. Available at www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technicalsupport-document-technical-update-of-the-socialcost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact (last accessed
April 15, 2022); Interagency Working Group on
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States
Government. Technical Support Document:
Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order
12866. August 2016. Available at www.epa.gov/
sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_
august_2016.pdf (last accessed Jan. 18, 2022);
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases, United States Government.
Addendum to Technical Support Document on
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis Under Executive Order 12866: Application
of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of
Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide.
August 2016. Available at www.epa.gov/sites/
default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_scghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf (last accessed Jan. 18,
2022).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
18206
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
developments in the literature
pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes
that while OMB Circular A–4, as
published in 2003, recommends using
3-percent and 7-percent discount rates
as ‘‘default’’ values, Circular A–4 also
reminds agencies that ‘‘different
regulations may call for different
emphases in the analysis, depending on
the nature and complexity of the
regulatory issues and the sensitivity of
the benefit and cost estimates to the key
assumptions.’’ On discounting, Circular
A–4 recognizes that ‘‘special ethical
considerations arise when comparing
benefits and costs across generations,’’
and Circular A–4 acknowledges that
analyses may appropriately ‘‘discount
future costs and consumption benefits
. . . at a lower rate than for
intragenerational analysis.’’ In the 2015
Response to Comments on the Social
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the IWG
members recognized that ‘‘Circular A–4
is a living document’’ and ‘‘the use of
7 percent is not considered appropriate
for intergenerational discounting. There
is wide support for this view in the
academic literature, and it is recognized
in Circular A–4 itself.’’ Thus, DOE
concludes that a 7-percent discount rate
is not appropriate to apply to value the
social cost of greenhouse gases in the
analysis presented in this document.
To calculate the present and
annualized values of climate benefits,
DOE uses the same discount rate as the
rate used to discount the value of
damages from future GHG emissions for
internal consistency. That approach to
discounting follows the same approach
that the February 2021 TSD
recommends ‘‘to ensure internal
consistency—i.e., future damages from
climate change using the SC–GHG at 2.5
percent should be discounted to the
base year of the analysis using the same
2.5 percent rate.’’ DOE has also
consulted the National Academies’ 2017
recommendations on how SC–GHG
estimates can ‘‘be combined in RIAs
with other cost and benefits estimates
that may use different discount rates.’’
The National Academies reviewed
several options, including ‘‘presenting
all discount rate combinations of other
costs and benefits with [SC–GHG]
estimates.’’
As a member of the IWG involved in
the development of the February 2021
SC–GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the
above assessment and will continue to
follow developments in the literature
pertaining to this issue. While the IWG
works to assess how best to incorporate
the latest, peer-reviewed science to
develop an updated set of SC–GHG
estimates, it set the interim estimates to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
be the most recent estimates developed
by the IWG prior to the group being
disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely
on the same models and harmonized
inputs and are calculated using a range
of discount rates. As explained in the
February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the IWG
has recommended that agencies revert
to the same set of four values drawn
from the SC–GHG distributions based
on three discount rates as were used in
regulatory analyses between 2010 and
2016 and were subject to public
comment. For each discount rate, the
IWG combined the distributions across
models and socioeconomic emissions
scenarios (applying equal weight to
each) and then selected a set of four
values recommended for use in benefitcost analyses: an average value resulting
from the model runs for each of three
discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 percent,
and 5 percent) plus a fourth value,
selected as the 95th percentile of
estimates based on a 3-percent discount
rate. The fourth value was included to
provide information on potentially
higher-than-expected economic impacts
from climate change. As explained in
the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, with
which DOE agrees, this update reflects
the immediate need to have an
operational SC–GHG for use in
regulatory benefit-cost analyses and
other applications that was developed
using a transparent process, peerreviewed methodologies, and the
science available at the time of that
process. Those estimates were subject to
public comment in dozens of proposed
rulemakings as well as in a dedicated
public comment period in 2013.
There are a number of limitations and
uncertainties associated with the SC–
GHG estimates. First, the current
scientific and economic understanding
of discounting approaches suggests
discount rates appropriate for
intergenerational analysis in the context
of climate change are likely to be less
than 3 percent, near 2 percent, or
lower.102 Second, the IAMs used to
produce these interim estimates do not
include all of the important physical,
ecological, and economic impacts of
climate change recognized in the
climate change literature, and the
science underlying their ‘‘damage
functions’’—i.e., the core parts of the
102 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases (IWG), United States
Government. Technical Support Document: Social
Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim
Estimates Under Executive Order 13990. February
2021. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/briefingroom/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-scienceevidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-ofreducing-climate-pollution/ (last accessed May 23,
2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
IAMs that map global mean temperature
changes and other physical impacts of
climate change into economic (both
market and nonmarket) damages—lags
behind the most recent research. For
example, limitations include the
incomplete treatment of catastrophic
and non-catastrophic impacts in the
integrated assessment models, their
incomplete treatment of adaptation and
technological change, the incomplete
way in which interregional and
intersectoral linkages are modeled,
uncertainty in the extrapolation of
damages to high temperatures, and
inadequate representation of the
relationship between the discount rate
and uncertainty in economic growth
over long time horizons. Likewise, the
socioeconomic and emissions scenarios
used as inputs to the models do not
reflect new information from the last
decade of scenario generation or the full
range of projections. The modeling
limitations do not all work in the same
direction in terms of their influence on
the SC–CO2 estimates. However, as
discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the
IWG has recommended that, taken
together, the limitations suggest that the
interim SC–GHG estimates used in this
direct final rule likely underestimate the
damages from GHG emissions. DOE
concurs with this assessment.
DOE’s derivations of the SC–CO2, SC–
N2O, and SC–CH4 values used for this
direct final rule are discussed in the
following sections, and the results of
DOE’s analyses estimating the benefits
of the reductions in emissions of these
GHGs are presented in section V.B.6 of
this document.
a. Social Cost of Carbon
The SC–CO2 values used for this
direct final rule were based on the
values developed for the IWG’s
February 2021 TSD, which are shown in
Table IV.22 in 5-year increments from
2020 to 2050. The set of annual values
that DOE used, which was adapted from
estimates published by EPA,103 is
presented in appendix 14A of the direct
final rule TSD. These estimates are
based on methods, assumptions, and
parameters identical with the 2020–
2050 estimates published by the IWG
(which were based on EPA modeling)
and include values for 2051 to 2070.
DOE expects additional climate benefits
to accrue for any longer-life consumer
clothes dryers after 2070, but a lack of
available SC–CO2 estimates for
103 See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year
Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards:
Regulatory Impact Analysis, Washington, DC,
December 2021. Available at nepis.epa.gov/Exe/
ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013ORN.pdf (last accessed
Feb. 21, 2023).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18207
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
emissions years beyond 2070 prevents
DOE from monetizing these potential
benefits in this analysis.
For purposes of capturing the
uncertainties involved in regulatory
impact analysis, DOE has determined it
is appropriate to include all four sets of
SC–CO2 values, as recommended by the
IWG.104
TABLE IV.22—ANNUAL SC–CO2 VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050
[2020$ per Metric Ton CO2]
Discount rate and statistic
5%
3%
2.5%
3%
Average
Average
Average
95th
percentile
Year
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions
reduction estimated for each year by the
SC–CO2 value for that year in each of
the four cases. DOE adjusted the values
to 2022$ using the implicit price
deflator for gross domestic product
(‘‘GDP’’) from the Bureau of Economic
Analysis. To calculate a present value of
the stream of monetary values, DOE
discounted the values in each of the
four cases using the specific discount
14
17
19
22
25
28
32
rate that had been used to obtain the
SC–CO2 values in each case.
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous
Oxide
The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values used
for this direct final rule were based on
the values developed for the February
2021 TSD. Table IV.23 shows the
updated sets of SC–CH4 and SC–N2O
estimates from the latest interagency
51
56
62
67
73
79
85
76
83
89
96
103
110
116
152
169
187
206
225
242
260
update in 5-year increments from 2020
to 2050. The full set of annual values
used is presented in appendix 14A of
the direct final rule TSD. To capture the
uncertainties involved in regulatory
impact analysis, DOE has determined it
is appropriate to include all four sets of
SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values, as
recommended by the IWG. DOE derived
values after 2050 using the approach
described above for the SC–CO2.
TABLE IV.23.—ANNUAL SC–CH4 AND SC–N2O VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050
[2020$ per Metric Ton]
SC–CH4
SC–N2O
Discount rate and statistic
Discount rate and statistic
Year
5%
Average
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
104 For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses
how the understanding of discounting approaches
suggests that discount rates appropriate for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
Average
670
800
940
1100
1300
1500
1700
DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O
emissions reduction estimated for each
year by the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O
estimates for that year in each of the
cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2022$
using the implicit price deflator for
gross domestic product (‘‘GDP’’) from
the Bureau of Economic Analysis. To
calculate a present value of the stream
of monetary values, DOE discounted the
values in each of the cases using the
specific discount rate that had been
used to obtain the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O
estimates in each case.
2.5%
3%
Average
95th
percentile
3%
1500
1700
2000
2200
2500
2800
3100
2000
2200
2500
2800
3100
3500
3800
3900
4500
5200
6000
6700
7500
8200
c. Sensitivity Analysis Using Updated
2023 SC–GHG Estimates
In December 2023 EPA issued a new
set of SC–GHG estimates (2023 SC–
GHG) in connection with a final
rulemaking under the Clean Air Act.105
For this rulemaking, DOE used these
updated 2023 SC–GHG values to
conduct a sensitivity analysis of the
value of GHG emissions reductions
associated with alternative standards for
consumer clothes dryers. This
sensitivity analysis provides an
expanded range of potential climate
intergenerational analysis in the context of climate
change may be lower than 3 percent.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5%
Average
3%
Average
5800
6800
7800
9000
10000
12000
13000
18000
21000
23000
25000
28000
30000
33000
2.5%
3%
Average
95th
percentile
27000
30000
33000
36000
39000
42000
45000
48000
54000
60000
67000
74000
81000
88000
benefits associated with amended
standards. The final year of EPA’s new
the 2023 SC–GHG estimates is 2080;
therefore, DOE did not monetize the
climate benefits of GHG emissions
reductions occurring after 2080.
The overall climate benefits are larger
using when using the higher, updated
2023 SC–GHG estimates, compared to
the climate benefits using the older IWG
SC–GHG estimates. However, DOE’s
conclusion that the standards are
economically justified remains the same
105 See www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/
scghg.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18208
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
regardless of which SC–GHG estimates
are used.
The results of the sensitivity analysis
are presented in appendix 14C of the
direct final rule TSD.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
2. Monetization of Other Emissions
Impacts
For the direct final rule, DOE
estimated the monetized value of NOX
and SO2 emissions reductions from
electricity generation using benefit-perton estimates for that sector from the
EPA’s Benefits Mapping and Analysis
Program.106 DOE used EPA’s values for
PM2.5-related benefits associated with
NOX and SO2 and for ozone-related
benefits associated with NOX for 2025
and 2030, and 2040, calculated with
discount rates of 3 percent and 7
percent. DOE used linear interpolation
to define values for the years not given
in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years
beyond 2040, the values are held
constant. DOE combined the EPA
benefit-per-ton estimates with regional
information on electricity consumption
and emissions to define weighted
average national values for NOX and
SO2 as a function of sector (see
appendix 14B of the direct final rule
TSD).
DOE also estimated the monetized
value of NOX and SO2 emissions
reductions from site use of natural gas
in consumer clothes dryers using
benefit-per-ton estimates from the EPA’s
Benefits Mapping and Analysis
Program. Although none of the sectors
covered by EPA refers specifically to
residential and commercial buildings,
the sector called ‘‘area sources’’ would
be a reasonable proxy for residential and
commercial buildings.107 The EPA
document provides high and low
estimates for 2025 and 2030 at 3- and 7percent discount rates.108 DOE used the
same linear interpolation and
extrapolation as it did with the values
for electricity generation.
DOE multiplied the site emissions
reduction (in tons) in each year by the
associated $/ton values, and then
discounted each series using discount
106 Estimating the Benefit-per-Ton of Reducing
Directly-Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors and Ozone
Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at
www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-tonreducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.
107 ‘‘Area sources’’ represents all emission sources
for which states do not have exact (point) locations
in their emissions inventories. Because exact
locations would tend to be associated with larger
sources, ‘‘area sources’’ would be fairly
representative of small, dispersed sources like
homes and businesses.
108 ‘‘Area sources’’ are a category in the 2018
document from EPA but are not used in the 2021
document cited above. See www.epa.gov/sites/
default/files/2018-02/documents/
sourceapportionmentbpttsd_2018.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as
appropriate.
For this direct final rule, DOE
considered comments it had received
regarding its monetization emission
impact analysis presented in the August
2022 NOPR. The approach used for this
direct final rule is largely the same as
the approach DOE had used for the
August 2022 NOPR analysis.
In response to the August 2022 NOPR,
AHAM disagreed with DOE’s use of
both the social cost of carbon (‘‘SCC’’)
and other monetization of emissions
reductions benefits in its analysis of the
factors that EPCA requires DOE to
balance in determining the appropriate
standard, as these values are highly
subjective and ever-changing. (AHAM,
No. 46 at p. 14)
As stated in section III.E.1.f of this
document, DOE maintains that
environmental and public health
benefits associated with more efficient
use of energy, including those
connected to global climate change, are
important to take into account when
considering the need for national energy
conservation, which is one of the factors
that EPCA requires DOE to evaluate in
determining whether a potential energy
conservation standard is economically
justified. In addition, Executive Order
13563, which was reaffirmed on January
21, 2021, stated that each agency must,
among other things, ‘‘select, in choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity).’’ For these reasons, DOE
includes monetized emissions
reductions in its evaluation of potential
standard levels. As previously stated,
however, DOE would reach the same
conclusion presented in this rulemaking
in the absence of the SC–GHG. At the
Recommended TSL, the average LCC
savings for all product classes is
positive. In addition, the FFC national
energy savings are significant and the
NPV of consumer benefits is positive
using both a 3-percent and 7-percent
discount rate. Even when measured at
the more conservative discount rate of 7
percent, the NPV of consumer benefits
is over 64 times higher than the
maximum estimated manufacturers’ loss
in INPV.
M. Utility Impact Analysis
The utility impact analysis estimates
the changes in installed electrical
capacity and generation projected to
result for each considered TSL. The
analysis is based on published output
from the NEMS associated with
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
AEO2023. NEMS produces the AEO
Reference case, as well as a number of
side cases that estimate the economywide impacts of changes to energy
supply and demand. For the current
analysis, impacts are quantified by
comparing the levels of electricity sector
generation, installed capacity, fuel
consumption, and emissions in the
AEO2023 Reference case and various
side cases. Details of the methodology
are provided in the appendices to
chapters 13 and 15 of the direct final
rule TSD.
The output of this analysis is a set of
time-dependent coefficients that capture
the change in electricity generation,
primary fuel consumption, installed
capacity and power sector emissions
due to a unit reduction in demand for
a given end use. These coefficients are
multiplied by the stream of electricity
savings calculated in the NIA to provide
estimates of selected utility impacts of
potential new or amended energy
conservation standards.
The utility analysis also estimates the
impact on gas utilities in terms of
projected changes in natural gas
deliveries to consumers for each TSL.
N. Employment Impact Analysis
DOE considers employment impacts
in the domestic economy as one factor
in selecting a standard. Employment
impacts from new or amended energy
conservation standards include both
direct and indirect impacts. Direct
employment impacts are any changes in
the number of employees of
manufacturers of the products subject to
standards, their suppliers, and related
service firms. The MIA addresses those
impacts. Indirect employment impacts
are changes in national employment
that occur due to the shift in
expenditures and capital investment
caused by the purchase and operation of
more efficient appliances. Indirect
employment impacts from standards
consist of the net jobs created or
eliminated in the national economy,
other than in the manufacturing sector
being regulated, caused by (1) reduced
spending by consumers on energy, (2)
reduced spending on new energy supply
by the utility industry, (3) increased
consumer spending on the products to
which the new standards apply and
other goods and services, and (4) the
effects of those three factors throughout
the economy.
One method for assessing the possible
effects on the demand for labor of such
shifts in economic activity is to compare
sector employment statistics developed
by the Labor Department’s Bureau of
Labor Statistics (‘‘BLS’’). BLS regularly
publishes its estimates of the number of
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
jobs per million dollars of economic
activity in different sectors of the
economy, as well as the jobs created
elsewhere in the economy by this same
economic activity. Data from BLS
indicate that expenditures in the utility
sector generally create fewer jobs (both
directly and indirectly) than
expenditures in other sectors of the
economy.109 There are many reasons for
these differences, including wage
differences and the fact that the utility
sector is more capital-intensive and less
labor-intensive than other sectors.
Energy conservation standards have the
effect of reducing consumer utility bills.
Because reduced consumer
expenditures for energy likely lead to
increased expenditures in other sectors
of the economy, the general effect of
efficiency standards is to shift economic
activity from a less labor-intensive
sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more
labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail
and service sectors). Thus, the BLS data
suggest that net national employment
may increase due to shifts in economic
activity resulting from energy
conservation standards.
DOE estimated indirect national
employment impacts for the standard
levels considered in this direct final rule
using an input/output model of the U.S.
economy called Impact of Sector Energy
Technologies version 4 (‘‘ImSET’’).110
ImSET is a special-purpose version of
the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (‘‘I–O’’) model, which was
designed to estimate the national
employment and income effects of
energy-saving technologies. The ImSET
software includes a computer-based I–O
model having structural coefficients that
characterize economic flows among 187
sectors most relevant to industrial,
commercial, and residential building
energy use.
DOE notes that ImSET is not a general
equilibrium forecasting model, and that
the uncertainties involved in projecting
employment impacts, especially
changes in the later years of the
analysis. Because ImSET does not
incorporate price changes, the
employment effects predicted by ImSET
may overestimate actual job impacts
109 See U.S. Department of Commerce—Bureau of
Economic Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User
Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling
System (‘‘RIMS II’’). 1997. U.S. Government Printing
Office: Washington, DC. Available at www.osti.gov/
biblio/7281092 (last accessed July 1, 2021).
110 Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and
R.W. Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy
Technologies Model Description and User’s Guide.
2015. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory:
Richland, WA. PNNL–24563. Available at
www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/
technical_reports/PNNL-24563.pdf (last accessed
April 26, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
over the long run for this rule.
Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to
generate results for near-term
timeframes (2027–2033) where these
uncertainties are reduced.111 For more
details on the employment impact
analysis, see chapter 16 of the direct
final rule TSD.
O. Regulatory Impact Analysis
For any regulatory action that the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(‘‘OIRA’’) within OMB determines is a
significant regulatory action under
section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, section
6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866 requires Federal
agencies to provide an assessment,
including the underlying analysis, of
costs and benefits of potentially
effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives to the planned regulation,
identified by the agencies or the public
(including improving the current
regulation and reasonably viable nonregulatory actions), and an explanation
why the planned regulatory action is
preferable to the identified potential
alternatives. 58 FR 51735, 51741. As
discussed further in section VI.A of this
document, OIRA has determined that
this final regulatory action constitutes a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within
the scope of section 3(f)(1) of E.O.
12866, as amended by E.O. 14094.
Accordingly, DOE conducted a
regulatory impact analysis (‘‘RIA’’) for
this direct final rule.
As part of the RIA, DOE identifies
major alternatives to standards that
represent feasible policy options to
reduce the energy and water
consumption of the covered product.
DOE evaluates each alternative in terms
of its ability to achieve significant
energy and water savings at a reasonable
cost, and compares the effectiveness of
each alternative to the effectiveness of
the finalized standard. DOE recognizes
that voluntary or other non-regulatory
efforts by manufacturers, utilities, and
other interested parties can substantially
affect energy and water efficiency or
reduce energy and water consumption.
DOE bases its assessment on the
recorded impacts of any such initiatives
to date, but also considers information
presented by interested parties
regarding the impacts current initiatives
may have in the future. Further details
regarding the RIA are provided in
chapter 17 of the direct final rule TSD.
P. Other Comments
As discussed previously, DOE
considered relevant comments, data,
111 The near-term timeframes for the
Recommended TSL are 2028–2034.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18209
and information obtained during its
own rulemaking process in determining
whether the recommended standards
from the Joint Agreement are in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). And
while some of those comments were
directed at specific aspects of DOE’s
analysis of the Joint Agreement under
42 U.S.C. 6295(o), others were more
generally applicable to DOE’s energy
conservation standards rulemaking
program as a whole. The ensuing
discussion focuses on these general
comments concerning energy
conservation standards issued under
EPCA.
The National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine (‘‘NAS’’)
periodically appoint a committee to
peer review the assumptions, models,
and methodologies that DOE uses in
setting energy conservation standards
for covered products and equipment.
The most recent such peer review was
conducted in a series of meetings in
2020, and NAS issued the report 112 in
2021 detailing its findings and
recommendations on how DOE can
improve its analyses and align them
with best practices for cost-benefit
analysis.
AHAM recommended that DOE adopt
the recommendations of the NAS report
and incorporate the Regulatory Impact
Analysis methodology of Office of
Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’)
Circular A–4 and start with a more
robust assessment of private market
failures and alternatives to minimum
standards that includes a robust
identification and assessment of market
failures by market segment. (AHAM, No.
46 at pp. 12–13)
AGA and APGA also commented that
DOE should implement
recommendations in the NAS report,
specifically: appliance standards should
be economically justified or based on
significant failures of private markets or
irrational consumer behavior
(Recommendation 2–2); the Cost
Analysis segment of the Engineering
Analysis should be expanded to include
ranges of costs, patterns of
consumption, diversity factors, energy
peak demand, and variance regarding
environmental factors
(Recommendation 3–5); DOE should put
greater weight on ex post and marketbased evidence of markups to project a
more realistic range of effects of a
standard on prices (Recommendation
4–1); DOE should place greater
emphasis on providing an argument for
112 Review of Methods Used by the U.S.
Department of Energy in Setting Appliance and
Equipment Standards (2021), available at
nap.nationalacademies.org/25992.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18210
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
the plausibility and magnitude of any
market failure related to the energy
efficiency gap in its analyses
(Recommendation 4–13); and DOE
should give greater attention to a
broader set of potential market failures
on the supply side, including how
standards might reduce the number of
competing firms, and also how
standards might impact price
discrimination, technological diffusion,
and collusion (Recommendation 4–14).
(APGA et al., No. 47 at pp. 2–3)
The rulemaking process for standards
of covered products and equipment are
outlined at appendix A to subpart C of
10 CFR part 430, and DOE periodically
examines and revises these provisions
in separate rulemaking proceedings. The
recommendations in the NAS report
cited by commenters on the August
2022 NOPR, which pertain to the
processes by which DOE analyzes
energy conservation standards, will be
considered in a separate rulemaking
considering all product categories.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the
results from DOE’s analyses with
respect to the considered energy
conservation standards for consumer
clothes dryers. It addresses the TSLs
examined by DOE, the projected
impacts of each of these levels if
adopted as energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers,
and the standards levels that DOE is
adopting in this direct final rule.
Additional details regarding DOE’s
analyses are contained in the direct final
rule TSD supporting this document.
A. Trial Standard Levels
In general, DOE typically evaluates
potential amended standards for
products and equipment by grouping
individual efficiency levels for each
class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE
to identify and consider manufacturer
cost interactions between the product
classes, to the extent that there are such
interactions, and market cross elasticity
from consumer purchasing decisions
that may change when different
standard levels are set.
In the analysis conducted for this
direct final rule, DOE analyzed the
benefits and burdens of six TSLs for
consumer clothes dryers. DOE
developed TSLs that combine efficiency
levels for each analyzed product class/
category using similar technologies and/
or efficiencies and having roughly
comparable equipment availability. DOE
presents the results for the TSLs in this
document, while the results for all
efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are
in the direct final rule TSD. DOE
presents the results for the TSLs in this
document, while the results for all
efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are
in the direct final rule TSD.
Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the
corresponding efficiency levels that
DOE has identified for potential
amended energy conservation standards
for consumer clothes dryers. For the
vented gas compact product class, all
TSLs represent the baseline efficiency
level because there are no higher
efficiency levels, and this level
corresponds to the efficiency level for
vented gas compact clothes dryers in the
Recommended TSL in the Joint
Agreement. For all remaining product
classes, the TSLs are defined as follows.
TSL 6 represents the maximum
technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’)
energy efficiency. TSL 5 represents the
maximum national energy savings with
maximum positive NPV. TSL 4
represents the maximum national
energy savings with simple PBP less
than 4 years. TSL 3—which corresponds
to the Recommended TSL in the Joint
Agreement—represents the intermediate
efficiency level between TSL 2 and TSL
4. TSL 2 corresponds to the efficiency
level with high-speed spin for ventless
electric combination washer-dryer and
automatic termination control system
for all other product classes. TSL 1
corresponds to the efficiency level with
electronic controls.
TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Product class
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
TSL 6
1 (2.68) ............
1 (3.15) ............
1 (2.44) ............
1 (2.44) ............
Baseline (2.02)
Baseline (2.03)
3 (3.27) ............
3 (4.28) ............
3 (3.30) ............
2 (3.00) ............
Baseline (2.02)
1 (2.68) ............
4 (3.93) ............
4 (4.33) ............
4 (3.57) ............
3 (3.48) ............
Baseline (2.02)
1 (2.68) ............
5 (4.21) ............
4 (4.33) ............
4 (3.57) ............
3 (3.48) ............
Baseline (2.02)
1 (2.68) ............
7 (7.39) ............
4 (4.33) ............
5 (3.82) ............
4 (3.83) ............
Baseline (2.02)
1 (2.68) ............
7 (7.39)
6 (6.37)
6 (3.91)
4 (3.83)
Baseline (2.02)
2 (6.80)
Baseline (2.27)
1 (2.33) ............
1 (2.33) ............
1 (2.33) ............
1 (2.33) ............
2 (4.01)
Efficiency level and
representative CEFD2 (lb/kWh)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Electric, Standard .......................
Electric, Compact (120V) ...........
Vented Electric, Compact (240V)
Vented Gas, Standard ...............
Vented Gas, Compact ................
Ventless Electric, Compact
(240V).
Ventless Electric, Combination
Washer-Dryer.
DOE constructed the TSLs for this
direct final rule to include efficiency
levels (‘‘ELs’’) representative of ELs with
similar characteristics (i.e., using similar
technologies and/or efficiencies, and
having roughly comparable equipment
availability). The use of representative
ELs provided for greater distinction
between the TSLs. While representative
ELs were included in the TSLs, DOE
considered all ELs as part of its analysis
but did not include all ELs in the
TSLs.113
B. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
consumer subgroups. These analyses are
discussed in the following sections.
1. Economic Impacts on Individual
Consumers
113 Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this
final rule are discussed in section IV.C.1 of this
document. Results by efficiency level are presented
in the final rule TSD chapters 8 and 10.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
In general, higher efficiency products
affect consumers in two ways: (1)
purchase price increases and (2) annual
operating costs decrease. Inputs used for
calculating the LCC and PBP include
total installed costs (i.e., product price
plus installation costs) and operating
costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy
prices, energy price trends, repair costs,
and maintenance costs). The LCC
calculation also uses product lifetime
and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
DOE analyzed the economic impacts
on consumers of consumer clothes
dryers by looking at the effects that
potential amended standards at each
TSL would have on the LCC and PBP.
DOE also examined the impacts of
potential standards on selected
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
direct final rule TSD provides detailed
information on the LCC and PBP
analyses.
Table V.2 through Table V.13 show
the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs
considered for each product class. In the
first of each pair of tables, the simple
payback is measured relative to the
baseline product. In the second table,
the impacts are measured relative to the
efficiency distribution in the in the nonew-standards case in the compliance
year (see section IV.F.8 of this
document). Because some consumers
purchase products with higher
efficiency in the no-new-standards case,
the average savings are less than the
difference between the average LCC of
18211
the baseline product and the average
LCC at each TSL. The savings refer only
to consumers who are affected by a
standard at a given TSL. Those who
already purchase a product with
efficiency at or above a given TSL are
not affected. Consumers for whom the
LCC increases at a given TSL experience
a net cost.
TABLE V.2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC STANDARD CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Average costs
(2022$)
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
TSL
Installed cost
............................
1 .........................
2 .........................
3 * .......................
4 .........................
5, 6 ....................
Simple
payback period
(years)
Efficiency level
2.20
2.68
3.27
3.93
4.21
7.39
Baseline .............
1 ........................
3 ........................
4 ........................
5 ........................
7 ........................
First year’s
operating cost
$656
666
672
678
756
1,055
Lifetime
operating cost
$111
94
79
67
64
42
LCC
$1,251
1,082
922
802
759
514
$1,907
1,748
1,594
1,480
1,515
1,569
Average
lifetime
(years)
............................
0.5
0.5
0.6
2.1
5.8
14
14
14
14
14
14
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline
product.
* All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.3—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR ELECTRIC STANDARD CONSUMER
CLOTHES DRYERS
Life-cycle cost savings
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
TSL
1 ...............................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................
3 ** ............................................................................................
4 ...............................................................................................
5, 6 ...........................................................................................
Efficiency level
2.68
3.27
3.93
4.21
7.39
Percentage of
consumers that
experience net cost
(%)
Average LCC
savings *
(2022$)
1
3
4
5
7
$150
170
252
100
41
1.2
0.9
0.9
48.0
63.1
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC COMPACT (120V) CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Average costs
(2022$)
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
TSL
Installed cost
............................
1 .........................
2 .........................
3 * .......................
4, 5 ....................
6 .........................
Simple payback
period
(years)
Efficiency level
2.36
3.15
4.28
4.33
4.33
6.37
Baseline .............
1 ........................
3 ........................
4 ........................
4 ........................
6 ........................
First year’s
operating cost
$683
695
704
712
715
1,057
Lifetime
operating cost
$40
32
25
25
25
19
LCC
$325
257
199
198
198
146
$1,136
1,082
1,017
1,023
1,026
1,301
Average
lifetime
(years)
............................
1.5
1.5
2.2
2.2
18.1
14
14
14
14
14
14
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline
product.
* All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR ELECTRIC COMPACT (120V)
CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Life-cycle cost savings
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
TSL
1 ...............................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................
** 3 ............................................................................................
4, 5 ...........................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Efficiency level
3.15
4.28
4.33
4.33
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Percentage of
consumers that
experience net cost
(%)
Average LCC
savings *
(2022$)
1
3
4
4
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
$53
83
66
66
12MRR4
4.8
5.1
21.4
21.7
18212
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR ELECTRIC COMPACT (120V)
CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS—Continued
Life-cycle cost savings
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
TSL
6 ...............................................................................................
Efficiency level
6.37
Percentage of
consumers that
experience net cost
(%)
Average LCC
savings *
(2022$)
6
(209)
90.9
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.6—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Average costs
(2022$)
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
TSL
Installed cost
............................
1 .........................
2 .........................
3 * .......................
4 .........................
5 .........................
6 .........................
Simple
payback period
(years)
Efficiency level
2.00
2.44
3.30
3.57
3.57
3.82
3.91
Baseline .............
1 ........................
3 ........................
4 ........................
4 ........................
5 ........................
6 ........................
First year’s
operating cost
$685
698
707
714
718
802
1,059
Lifetime
operating cost
$47
41
32
30
30
29
29
LCC
$541
490
394
375
374
357
352
$1,226
1,187
1,101
1,090
1,092
1,160
1,412
Average
lifetime
(years)
............................
2.1
1.5
2.0
2.0
6.6
20.4
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline
product.
* All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.7—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR VENTED ELECTRIC COMPACT
(240V) CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Life-Cycle cost savings
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
TSL
1 ...............................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................
3 ** ............................................................................................
4 ...............................................................................................
5 ...............................................................................................
6 ...............................................................................................
Efficiency level
2.44
3.30
3.57
3.57
3.82
3.91
Percentage of consumers that
experience
net cost
(%)
Average LCC
savings *
(2022$)
1
3
4
4
5
6
$38
89
90
90
22
(230)
5.7
4.6
12.4
12.6
60.7
92.8
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.8—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VENTED GAS STANDARD CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Average costs
(2022$)
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
TSL
Efficiency level
Installed cost
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
..................................
1 ...............................
2 ...............................
3 * .............................
4 ...............................
5, 6 ..........................
2.00
2.44
3.00
3.48
3.48
3.83
Baseline ..................
1 ..............................
2 ..............................
3 ..............................
3 ..............................
4 ..............................
First year’s
operating cost
Lifetime
operating cost
$56
50
41
36
37
34
$668
607
511
465
464
429
$794
810
813
825
830
904
LCC
$1,461
1,417
1,324
1,291
1,293
1,333
Simple
payback
period
(years)
........................
2.5
1.3
1.9
1.9
5.0
Average
lifetime
(years)
14
14
14
14
14
14
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline
product.
* All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
18213
TABLE V.9—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR VENTED GAS STANDARD
CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Life-cycle cost savings
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
TSL
1 ...............................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................
3 ** ............................................................................................
4 ...............................................................................................
5, 6 ...........................................................................................
Efficiency level
2.44
3.00
3.48
3.48
3.83
Percentage of
consumers that
experience
net cost
(%)
Average LCC
savings *
(2022$)
1
2
3
3
4
$48
112
102
102
13
2.7%
1.7
7.1
7.0
68.7
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.10—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) CONSUMER CLOTHES
DRYERS
Average costs
(2022$)
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
TSL
Installed cost
............................
1 .........................
2, 4, 5 ................
3 * .......................
6 .........................
Simple
payback period
(years)
Efficiency level
2.03
2.03
2.68
2.68
6.80
Baseline .............
Baseline .............
1 ........................
1 ........................
2 ........................
First year’s operating cost
$1,020
1,020
1,024
1,018
1,346
Lifetime
operating cost
$41
41
31
30
12
LCC
$475
475
368
370
167
$1,495
1,495
1,392
1,387
1,513
Average
lifetime
(years)
............................
............................
0.4
0.4
11.4
14
14
14
14
14
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline
product.
* All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.11—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMPACT
(240V) CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Life-cycle cost savings
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
TSL
1 ...............................................................................................
2, 4, 5 .......................................................................................
3 ** ............................................................................................
6 ...............................................................................................
Efficiency level
2.03
2.68
2.68
6.80
Baseline
1
1
2
Average LCC
savings *
(2022$)
Percentage of
consumers that
experience
net cost
(%)
....................................
99
99
(102)
....................................
0.0
0.0
58.6
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.12—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMBINATION WASHER-DRYER CONSUMER
CLOTHES DRYERS
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
TSL
Average costs
(2022$)
Efficiency level
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Installed cost
1 .........................
2, 4, 5 ................
3 * .......................
6 .........................
2.27
2.33
2.33
4.01
Baseline .............
1 ........................
1 ........................
2 ........................
First year’s
operating cost
$1,335
1,335
1,327
2,031
$37
36
36
22
Lifetime
operating cost
LCC
$445
435
436
275
$1,780
1,769
1,763
2,305
Simple
payback period
(years)
............................
0.0
0.0
46.3
Average
lifetime
(years)
14
14
14
14
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline
product.
* All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18214
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.13—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR VENTLESS ELECTRIC
COMBINATION WASHER-DRYER CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Life-cycle cost savings
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
TSL
1 ...............................................................................................
2, 4, 5 .......................................................................................
3 ** ............................................................................................
6 ...............................................................................................
Average LCC
savings *
(2022$)
Percentage of
consumers that
experience
net cost
(%)
....................................
$10
11
(531)
....................................
0.0
0.0
95.0
Efficiency level
2.27
2.33
2.33
4.01
Baseline
1
1
2
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In the consumer subgroup analysis,
DOE estimated the impact of the
considered TSLs on low-income
households and senior-only households.
Table V.14 through Table V.25 compare
the average LCC savings, PBP, percent of
consumers negatively impacted, and
percent of consumers positively
impacted at each EL for the consumer
subgroups, along with corresponding
values for the entire residential
consumer sample for product classes
with a sufficient sample size. In most
cases, the average LCC savings and PBP
for low-income households and senioronly households at the considered ELs
are not substantially different from the
average for all households. Chapter 11
of the direct final rule TSD presents the
complete LCC and PBP results for the
subgroups.
TABLE V.14—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS: ELECTRIC
STANDARD CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Average life-cycle cost savings *
(2022$)
EL
TSL
Low-income
households
1
3
4
5
7
Simple payback period
(years)
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
1
2
** 3
4
5, 6
Senior-only
households
$148
166
245
127
180
All households
$110
128
190
58
(56)
Low-income
households
$150
170
252
100
41
Senior-only
households
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.1
3.2
All households
0.7
0.6
0.8
2.8
7.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
2.1
5.8
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.15—COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF IMPACTED CONSUMERS * FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL
HOUSEHOLDS: ELECTRIC STANDARD CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
EL
1
3
4
5
7
Low-income
households
(%)
TSL
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
1
2
** 3
4
5, 6
Senior-only
households
(%)
1.3
1.0
0.8
26.6
34.9
All households
(%)
1.4
1.1
1.1
53.6
71.6
1.2
0.9
0.9
48.0
63.1
* Percentage of impacted consumers indicates households with net cost.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.16—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS: ELECTRIC
COMPACT (120V) CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Average life-cycle cost savings *
(2022$)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
EL
Low-income
households
1
3
4
4
6
Simple payback period
(years)
TSL
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
1
2
** 3
4, 5
6
$67
96
84
83
(23)
Senior-only
households
All households
$34
61
46
46
(243)
Low-income
households
$53
83
66
66
(209)
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.0
8.5
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Senior-only
households
2.1
1.9
2.9
2.9
23.4
All households
1.5
1.5
2.2
2.2
18.1
18215
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.17—COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF IMPACTED CONSUMERS * FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL
HOUSEHOLDS: ELECTRIC COMPACT (120V) CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
EL
1
3
4
4
6
Low-income
households
(%)
TSL
...............................................................................................
...............................................................................................
...............................................................................................
...............................................................................................
...............................................................................................
1
2
** 3
4, 5
6
Senior-only
households
(%)
4.0
3.8
12.2
12.2
43.9
All households
(%)
5.0
5.6
24.8
25.0
94.9
4.8
5.1
21.4
21.7
90.9
* Percentage of impacted consumers indicates households with net cost.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.18—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS: VENTED
ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Average life-cycle cost savings *
(2022$)
EL
TSL
Low-income
households
1
3
4
4
5
6
Simple payback period
(years)
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
1
2
** 3
4
5
6
Senior-only
households
$51
102
109
109
83
(45)
All households
$22
66
65
64
(7)
(260)
Low-income
households
$38
89
90
90
22
(230)
Senior-only
households
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.0
3.1
9.6
All households
2.8
2.0
2.6
2.6
8.5
26.5
2.1
1.5
2.0
2.0
6.6
20.4
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.19—COMPARISON OF PERCENT OF IMPACTED CONSUMERS * FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL
HOUSEHOLDS: VENTED ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
EL
1
3
4
4
5
6
Low-income
households
(%)
TSL
...............................................................................................
...............................................................................................
...............................................................................................
...............................................................................................
...............................................................................................
...............................................................................................
1
2
** 3
4
5
6
Senior-only
households
(%)
4.5
3.7
7.4
7.5
30.0
44.9
All households
(%)
6.0
5.0
15.1
15.3
68.5
96.1
5.7
4.6
12.4
12.6
60.7
92.8
* Percent of impacted consumers indicates households with net cost.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.20—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS: VENTED
GAS STANDARD CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Average life-cycle cost savings *
(2022$)
EL
Low-income
households
1
2
3
3
4
Simple payback period
(years)
TSL
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
1
2
** 3
4
5, 6
Senior-only
households
$57
117
113
113
54
All households
$33
91
81
81
(5)
Low-income
households
$48
112
102
102
13
Senior-only
households
1.3
0.7
1.0
1.0
2.7
All households
3.3
1.6
2.4
2.4
6.3
2.5
1.3
1.9
1.9
5.0
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
TABLE V.21—COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF IMPACTED CONSUMERS * FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL
HOUSEHOLDS: VENTED GAS STANDARD CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
EL
1
2
3
3
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
Low-income
households
(%)
TSL
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1
2
** 3
3, 4
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
2.4
1.6
4.8
4.8
12MRR4
Senior-only
households
(%)
3.0
1.7
8.9
8.8
All households
(%)
2.7
1.7
7.1
7.0
18216
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.21—COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF IMPACTED CONSUMERS * FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL
HOUSEHOLDS: VENTED GAS STANDARD CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS—Continued
EL
Low-income
households
(%)
TSL
4 .......................................................................................................................
5, 6
Senior-only
households
(%)
35.9
All households
(%)
74.5
68.7
* Percentage of impacted consumers indicates households with net cost.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.22—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS: VENTLESS
ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Average life-cycle cost savings *
(2022$)
EL
0
1
1
2
Simple payback period
(years)
TSL
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
1
2, 4, 5
** 3
6
Low-income
households
Senior-only
households
All households
Low-income
households
Senior-only
households
All households
........................
$108
108
64
........................
$80
80
(147)
........................
$99
99
(102)
........................
0.2
0.2
5.4
........................
0.5
0.5
14.5
........................
0.4
0.4
11.4
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.23—COMPARISON OF PERCENT OF IMPACTED CONSUMERS * FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL
HOUSEHOLDS: VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMPACT (240V) CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
EL
0
1
2
2
TSL
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
1
2, 4, 5
** 3
6
Low-income
households
(%)
Senior-only
households
(%)
All households
(%)
........................
0.0
0.0
27.8
........................
0.0
0.0
63.4
........................
0.0
0.0
58.6
* Percentage of impacted consumers indicates households with net cost.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.24—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS: VENTLESS
ELECTRIC COMBINATION WASHER-DRYER CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Average life-cycle cost savings *
(2022$)
EL
0
1
1
2
Simple payback period
(years)
TSL
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
....................................................................
1
2, 4, 5
** 3
6
Low-income
households
Senior-only
households
All households
Low-income
households
Senior-only
households
All households
........................
$11
11
(186)
........................
$8
8
(565)
........................
$10
11
(531)
........................
0.0
0.0
22.0
........................
0.0
0.0
58.6
........................
0.0
0.0
46.3
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
TABLE V.25—COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF IMPACTED CONSUMERS * FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL
HOUSEHOLDS: VENTLESS ELECTRIC COMBINATION WASHER-DRYER CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
EL
0
1
1
2
TSL
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
1
2, 4, 5
** 3
6
Low-income
households
(%)
Senior-only
households
(%)
All households
(%)
........................
0.0
0.0
44.8
........................
0.0
0.0
96.2
........................
0.0
0.0
95.0
* Percentage of impacted consumers indicates households with net cost.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
As discussed in section II.A of this
document, EPCA establishes a
rebuttable presumption that an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified if the increased purchase cost
for a product that meets the standard is
less than three times the value of the
first-year energy savings resulting from
the standard. In calculating a rebuttable
presumption payback period for each of
the considered TSLs, DOE used discrete
values, and, as required by EPCA, based
the energy use calculation on the DOE
test procedures for consumer clothes
dryers. In contrast, the PBPs presented
in section V.B.1.a of this document were
calculated using distributions that
reflect the range of energy use in the
field.
Table V.26 presents the rebuttable
presumption payback periods for the
considered TSLs for consumer clothes
dryers. While DOE examined the
rebuttable presumption criterion, it
considered whether the standard levels
considered for this rule are
18217
economically justified through a more
detailed analysis of the economic
impacts of those levels, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers
the full range of impacts to the
consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and
environment. The results of that
analysis serve as the basis for DOE to
definitively evaluate the economic
justification for a potential standard
level, thereby supporting or rebutting
the results of any preliminary
determination of economic justification.
TABLE V.26—REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS
Trial standard level
Product class
1
2
3*
4
5
6
(years)
Electric, Standard .....................................
Electric, Compact (120 V) ........................
Vented Electric, Compact (240 V) ...........
Vented Gas, Standard .............................
Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V) .........
Ventless Electric, Combination WasherDryer .....................................................
0.4
1.0
3.2
3.1
........................
0.3
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.3
0.4
1.6
1.4
2.9
0.3
1.5
1.6
1.4
2.8
0.3
4.1
1.6
4.6
7.8
0.3
4.1
13.0
14.2
7.8
8.8
........................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.8
* All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
DOE performed an MIA to estimate
the impact of amended energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of consumer clothes
dryers. The next section describes the
expected impacts on manufacturers at
each considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the
direct final rule TSD explains the
analysis in further detail.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
In this section, DOE provides GRIM
results from the analysis, which
examines changes in the industry that
would result from a standard. The
following tables summarize the
estimated financial impacts (represented
by changes in INPV) of potential
amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of consumer clothes
dryers, as well as the conversion costs
that DOE estimates manufacturers of
consumer clothes dryers would incur at
each TSL.
The impacts of potential amended
energy conservation standards were
analyzed under two scenarios: (1) the
preservation of gross margin percentage;
and (2) the preservation of operating
profit as discussed in section IV.J.2.d of
this document. In the preservation-of114 The gross margin percentage of 21 percent is
based on a manufacturer markup of 1.26.
115 The analysis period ranges from 2024–2056 for
the no-new-standards case and all TSLs, except for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
gross-margin-percentage scenario, DOE
applied a gross margin percentage of 21
percent for all product classes and all
efficiency levels in the standards
case.114 This scenario assumes that a
manufacturer’s per-unit dollar profit
would increase as MPCs increase in the
standards cases. DOE models this
scenario as an upper bound to industry
profitability under an energy
conservation standard.
In the preservation-of-operating-profit
scenario, manufacturers do not earn
additional operating profit when
compared to the no-new-standards case
scenario. While manufacturers make the
necessary upfront investments required
to produce compliant products, per-unit
operating profit does not change in
absolute dollars. DOE models this
scenario as the lower bound to industry
profitability under an energy
conservation standard.
Each of the modeled scenarios results
in a unique set of cash flows and
corresponding INPV for each TSL. INPV
is the sum of the discounted cash flows
to the industry from the base year
through the end of the analysis period
(30 years from the analyzed compliance
year).115 The ‘‘change in INPV’’ results
refer to the difference in industry value
between the no-new-standards case and
standards case at each TSL. To provide
perspective on the short-run cash-flow
impact, DOE includes a comparison of
free cash flow between the no-newstandards case and the standards case at
each TSL in the year before amended
standards would take effect. This figure
provides an understanding of the
magnitude of the required conversion
costs relative to the cash flow generated
by the industry in the no-new-standards
case.
Conversion costs are one-time
investments for manufacturers to bring
their manufacturing facilities and
product designs into compliance with
potential amended standards. As
described in section IV.J.2.c of this
document, conversion cost investments
occur between the year of publication of
the direct final rule and the year by
which manufacturers must comply with
the new standard. The conversion costs
can have a significant impact on shortterm cash flow within the industry and
generally result in lower free cash flow
in the period between publication of the
direct final rule and the compliance
date of potential amended standards.
Conversion costs are independent of the
manufacturer markup scenarios and are
not presented as a range in this analysis.
TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL). The analysis period
for TSL 3 ranges from 2024–2057 due to the 2028
compliance year.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18218
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.27—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
Units
INPV ..................................
Change in INPV * ..............
Free Cash Flow (2026) **
Change in Free Cash Flow
(2026) **.
Product Conversion Costs
Capital Conversion Costs
Total Conversion Costs ....
2022$ millions.
% ................
2022$ millions.
% ................
2022$ millions.
2022$ millions.
2022$ millions.
No-newstandards case
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
..............................
2,080.3 to
2,084.3.
(1.7) to (1.5) ...
2,061.1 to
2,069.5.
(2.6) to (2.2) ...
1,971.2 to
1,995.8.
(6.8) to (5.7) ...
1,501.9 to
1,724.8.
(29.0) to (18.5)
*** 136.7
119.2 ...............
109.7 ...............
61.2 .................
(153.7) ............
679.9 to
1,800.8.
(67.9) to
(14.9).
(496.0) ........
604.3 to
1,753.5
(71.4) to
(17.1)
(531.4)
..............................
(12.8) ..............
(19.8) ..............
(55.2) ..............
(212.5) ............
(462.9) ........
(488.8)
..............................
27.3 .................
37.6 .................
51.7 .................
87.7 .................
122.6 ..........
128.2
..............................
18.6 .................
31.9 .................
128.9 ...............
579.7 ...............
1,314.3 .......
1,388.8
..............................
45.8 .................
69.5 .................
180.7 ...............
667.5 ...............
1,436.9 .......
1,516.9
2,115.4
TSL 6
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
* Parentheses denote negative values.
** TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) represents the change in free cash flow in 2027, a year before the 2028 compliance date.
*** In 2027, the no-new-standards free cash flow is $136.6 million.
The cash flow results discussion
below refers to product classes as
defined in Table IV.1 in section IV.A.1
of this document. It also refers to the
efficiency levels and associated design
options designated in Table IV.5
through Table IV.10 in section IV.C.1.b
of this document.
At TSL 1, the standard reflects
efficiency levels with electronic controls
for all product classes. The change in
INPV is expected to range from ¥1.7 to
¥1.5 percent. At this level, free cash
flow is estimated to decrease by 12.8
percent compared to the no-newstandards case value of $136.7 million
in the year 2026, the year before the
2027 standards year. DOE’s shipments
analysis estimates approximately 85
percent of current shipments meet this
level.116
The design options DOE analyzed
include implementing electronic
controls. For electric standard, electric
compact (120V), vented electric
compact (240V), and vented gas
standard, TSL 1 corresponds to EL 1.
For ventless electric compact (240V)
and ventless electric combination
washer-dryer, TSL 1 corresponds to the
baseline CEFD2. Capital conversion costs
may be necessary for additional tooling
for timers and electronics. Product
conversion costs may be necessary for
developing, sourcing, and testing
electronics (e.g., safety, performance,
and durability tests). DOE does not
expect industry to incur re-flooring
costs at this level since the necessary
enhancements could be done ‘‘behind
the hinge,’’ incorporating the design
changes in a manner that does not
impact product appearance. DOE does
not expect industry to incur conversion
costs related to the ventless electric
compact (240V) or ventless electric
116 Current shipments calculations relied on
shipments in 2024 (the reference year).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
combination washer-dryer as the
efficiency levels would remain at
baseline. DOE estimates capital
conversion costs of $18.6 million and
product conversion costs of $27.3
million. Conversion costs total $45.8
million.
At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted
average MPC for all consumer clothes
dryers is expected to increase by 0.3
percent relative to the no-new-standards
case shipment-weighted average MPC
for all consumer clothes dryers in 2027.
Given this relatively small increase in
production costs, DOE does not project
a notable drop in shipments in the year
the standard takes effect. In the
preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage
scenario, the slight increase in cash flow
from the higher MSP is outweighed by
the $45.8 million in conversion costs,
causing a slightly negative change in
INPV at TSL 1 under this scenario.
Under the preservation-of-operatingprofit scenario, manufacturers earn the
same per-unit operating profit as would
be earned in the no-new-standards case,
but manufacturers do not earn
additional profit from their investments.
In this scenario, the manufacturer
markup decreases in 2028, the year after
the analyzed 2027 compliance year.
This reduction in the manufacturer
markup and the $45.8 million in
conversion costs incurred by
manufacturers cause a slightly negative
change in INPV at TSL 1 under the
preservation-of-operating-profit
scenario.
At TSL 2, the standard reflects
efficiency levels with more advanced
automatic termination controls for
electric standard, electric compact
(120V), vented electric compact (240V),
vented gas standard, and ventless
electric compact (240V), and high-speed
spin for ventless electric combination
washer-dryer. The change in INPV is
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
expected to range from ¥2.6 to ¥2.2
percent. At this level, free cash flow is
estimated to decrease 19.8 percent
compared to the no-new-standards case
value of $136.7 million in the year 2026,
the year before the 2027 standards year.
DOE’s shipments analysis estimates
approximately 58 percent of current
shipments meet this level.
The design options for electric
standard, electric compact (120V),
vented electric compact (240V), vented
gas standard, and ventless electric
compact (240V) include implementing
electronic controls, optimized heating
systems, and more advanced automatic
termination controls. For ventless
electric combination washer-dryer, the
design option analyzed includes highspeed spin cycles. For the electric
standard, electric compact (120V), and
vented electric compact (240V), TSL 2
corresponds to EL 3. For vented gas
standard, TSL 2 corresponds to EL 2.
For ventless electric compact (240V)
and ventless electric combination
washer-dryer, TSL 2 corresponds to EL
1. Capital conversion costs may be
necessary for incremental updates in
tooling. Product conversion costs may
be necessary for software optimization,
prototyping, and testing. DOE expects
industry to incur some re-flooring costs
as manufacturers redesign product lines
to meet the efficiency levels required by
TSL 2. DOE estimates capital conversion
costs of $31.9 million and product
conversion costs of $37.6 million.
Conversion costs total $69.5 million.
At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted
average MPC for all consumer clothes
dryers is expected to increase by 0.6
percent relative to the no-new-standards
case shipment-weighted average MPC
for all consumer clothes dryers in 2027.
Given the relatively small increase in
production costs, DOE does not project
a notable drop in shipments in the year
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
the standard takes effect. In the
preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage
scenario, the slight increase cash flow
from the higher MSP is outweighed by
the $69.5 million in conversion costs,
causing a slightly negative change in
INPV at TSL 2 under this scenario.
Under the preservation-of-operatingprofit scenario, the manufacturer
markup decreases in 2028, the year after
the analyzed 2027 compliance year.
This reduction in the manufacturer
markup and the $69.5 million in
conversion costs incurred by
manufacturers cause a negative change
in INPV at TSL 2 under the
preservation-of-operating-profit
scenario.
At TSL 3 (i.e., the Recommended
TSL), the standard reflects a set of
efficiency levels between the levels
designated in TSL 2 and TSL 4. The
change in INPV is expected to range
from ¥6.8 to ¥5.7 percent. At this
level, free cash flow is estimated to
decrease 55.2 percent compared to the
no-new-standards case value of $136.6
million in the year 2027, the year before
the 2028 standards year. DOE’s
shipments analysis estimates
approximately 48 percent of current
shipments meet this level.
The design options analyzed for
electric standard, electric compact
(120V), vented electric compact (240V),
and vented gas standard include
implementing electronic controls,
optimized heating systems, more
advanced automatic termination
controls, and modulating heat. For
ventless electric compact (240V) and
ventless electric combination washerdryer, the design options analyzed are
the same as TSL 2. For electric standard,
electric compact (120V), and vented
electric compact (240V), TSL 3
corresponds to EL 4. For vented gas
standard, TSL 3 corresponds to EL 3.
For ventless electric compact (240V)
and ventless electric combination
washer-dryer, TSL 3 corresponds to EL
1. The incremental increase in industry
conversion costs from the prior TSL are
due to the higher efficiency level
requirements for electric standard,
electric compact (120V), vented electric
compact (240V), and vented gas
standard. Capital conversion costs may
be necessary as manufacturers increase
tooling for two-stage heating systems.
Product conversion costs may be
necessary for prototyping and testing.
DOE expects industry to incur similar
re-flooring costs as with TSL 2. DOE
estimates capital conversion costs of
$128.9 million and product conversion
costs of $51.7 million. Conversion costs
total $180.7 million.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted
average MPC for all consumer clothes
dryers is expected to increase by 1.7
percent relative to the no-new-standards
case shipment-weighted average MPC
for all consumer clothes dryers in 2028.
Given the relatively small increase in
production costs, DOE does not project
a notable drop in shipments in the year
the standard takes effect. In the
preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage
scenario, the increase in cash flow from
the higher MSP is outweighed by the
$180.7 million in conversion costs,
causing a negative change in INPV at
TSL 3 under this scenario. Under the
preservation-of-operating-profit
scenario, the manufacturer markup
decreases in 2029, the year after the
analyzed 2028 compliance year. This
reduction in the manufacturer markup
and the $180.7 million in conversion
costs incurred by manufacturers cause a
negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under
the preservation-of-operating-profit
scenario.
At TSL 4, the standard reflects the
maximum national energy savings with
a simple PBP of less than 4 years. The
change in INPV is expected to range
from ¥29.0 to ¥18.5 percent. At this
level, free cash flow is estimated to
decrease by 212.5 percent compared to
the no-new-standards case value of
$136.7 million in the year 2026, the year
before the 2027 standards year. DOE’s
shipments analysis estimates
approximately 15 percent of current
shipments meet this level.
The design options analyzed for
electric standard include implementing
electronic controls, optimized heating
systems, more advanced automatic
termination controls, modulating heat,
and inlet air preheat. For the remaining
product classes, the efficiency levels
and analyzed design options for TSL 4
are the same as TSL 3. The incremental
increase in industry conversion costs
from the prior TSL is due to the
efficiency level requirements for electric
standard. 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.
Electric standard dryers account for an
estimated 81 percent of domestic
consumer clothes dryer shipments. Of
these standard electric dryer shipments,
DOE estimates only 7 percent meet or
exceed the efficiency level required by
TSL 4. Implementing inlet air preheat
represents a major overhaul of existing
product lines and manufacturing
facilities. For capital conversion costs,
this change might necessitate significant
new equipment and tooling. Product
conversion costs may be necessary for
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18219
designing, prototyping, and testing new
or updated platforms. DOE expects
industry to incur more re-flooring costs
compared to prior TSLs as more display
units would need to be replaced with
high-efficiency models. DOE estimates
capital conversion costs of $579.7
million and product conversion costs of
$87.7 million. Conversion costs total
$667.5 million.
At TSL 4, the large conversion costs
result in free cash flow dropping below
zero in the years before the standards
year. The negative free cash-flow
calculation indicates manufacturers may
need to access cash reserves or outside
capital to finance conversion efforts.
At this level, the shipment-weighted
average MPC for all consumer clothes
dryers is expected to increase by 13
percent relative to the no-new-standards
case shipment-weighted average MPC
for all consumer clothes dryers in 2027.
Given the projected increase in
production costs, DOE estimates a less
than 1-percent drop in shipments in the
year the standard takes effect compared
to the no-new-standards case. In the
preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage
scenario, the increase in cash flow from
the higher MSP is outweighed by the
$667.5 million in conversion costs,
causing a negative change in INPV at
TSL 4 under this scenario. Under the
preservation-of-operating-profit
scenario, the manufacturer markup
decreases in 2028, the year after the
analyzed 2027 compliance year. This
reduction in the manufacturer markup
and the $667.5 million in conversion
costs incurred by manufacturers cause a
negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under
the preservation-of-operating-profit
scenario.
At TSL 5, the standard reflects the
maximum national energy savings with
maximum positive NPV. The change in
INPV is expected to range from ¥67.9
to ¥14.9 percent. At this level, free cash
flow is estimated to decrease by 462.9
percent compared to the no-newstandards case value of $136.7 million
in the year 2026, the year before the
2027 standards year. DOE’s shipments
analysis estimates approximately 2
percent of current shipments meet this
level.
The design option analyzed for
electric standard includes implementing
heat pump technology. The design
options analyzed for the vented electric
compact (240V) and vented gas standard
include implementing electronic
controls, optimized heating systems,
more advanced automatic termination
controls, modulating heat, and inlet air
preheat. For electric compact (120V),
ventless electric compact (240V), and
ventless electric combination washer-
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
18220
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
dryer, the design options analyzed are
the same as the prior TSL. For electric
standard, TSL 5 corresponds to EL 7.
For electric compact (120V) and vented
gas standard, TSL 5 corresponds to EL
4. For vented electric compact (240V),
TSL 5 corresponds to EL 5. For ventless
electric compact (240V) and ventless
electric combination washer-dryer, TSL
5 corresponds to EL 1.
At TSL 5, conversion costs are largely
driven by the max-tech efficiency level
required for electric standard and
vented gas standard. As previously
discussed, electric standard dryers
account for 81 percent of domestic
consumer clothes dryer shipments.
Currently, there are few electric
standard models on the U.S. market that
meet the max-tech efficiency level
required by TSL 5. Of the 13 OEMs
identified that offer electric standard
dryers, only five OEMs manufacture
electric standard dryers that utilize heat
pump technology. Of these five OEMs,
four OEMs offer approximately six
models (accounting for less than 1
percent of electric standard model
listings) that meet the max-tech level
required at TSL 5. Nearly all
manufacturers would need to
significantly update facilities to meet a
heat pump efficiency level for electric
standard dryers. Mandating a heat pump
efficiency level for this product class
would require many manufacturers to
design completely new clothes dryer
platforms or adapt heat pump designs
from other markets (i.e., redesign
European heat pump models to adhere
to U.S. safety standards and consumer
preferences).
Vented gas standard dryers account
for approximately 17 percent of
domestic consumer clothes dryer
shipments. Manufacturers would need
to implement inlet air preheat
technology along with other design
options to meet the efficiency levels
required by TSL 5. Thus far, dryers with
this technology and performance have
not been observed in clothes dryers
available on the consumer market.
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.
DOE expects industry to incur more
re-flooring costs compared to prior
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
TSLs, as nearly all display units would
need to be replaced with high-efficiency
models. DOE estimates capital
conversion costs of $1,314.3 million and
product conversion costs of $122.6
million. Conversion costs total $1,436.9
million.
As with TSL 4, the large conversion
costs result in free cash flow dropping
below zero in the years before the
standard year. The negative free cashflow calculation indicates
manufacturers may need to access cash
reserves or outside capital to finance
conversion efforts.
At this level, the shipment-weighted
average MPC for all consumer clothes
dryers is expected to increase by 63.2
percent relative to the no-new-standards
case shipment-weighted average MPC
for all consumer clothes dryers in 2027.
Given the projected increase in
production costs, DOE expects an
estimated 11-percent drop in shipments
in the year the standard takes effect
compared to the no-new-standards case.
In the preservation-of-gross-marginpercentage scenario, the increase in
MSP is outweighed by the $1,436.9
million in conversion costs and the drop
in annual shipments, causing a negative
change in INPV at TSL 5 under this
scenario. Under the preservation-ofoperating-profit scenario, the
manufacturer markup decreases in 2028,
the year after the analyzed 2027
compliance year. This large reduction in
manufacturer markup, the $1,436.9
million in conversion costs incurred by
manufacturers, and the drop in annual
shipments cause a significantly negative
change in INPV at TSL 5 under the
preservation-of-operating-profit
scenario.
At TSL 6, the standard reflects maxtech efficiency for all product classes.
The change in INPV is expected to range
from ¥71.4 to ¥17.1 percent. At this
level, free cash flow is estimated to
decrease by 488.8 percent compared to
the no-new-standards case value of
$136.7 million in the year 2026, the year
before the 2027 standards year. DOE’s
shipments analysis estimates
approximately 1 percent of current
shipments meet this level.
The design option analyzed for TSL 6
incorporates heat pump technology for
electric standard, electric compact
(120V), vented electric compact (240V),
ventless electric compact (240V), and
ventless electric combination washerdryer. For vented gas standard, the
design options analyzed include
implementing electronic controls,
optimized heating systems, more
advanced automatic termination
controls, modulating heat, and inlet air
preheat.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Of the 19 OEMs that manufacture
electric consumer clothes dryers (i.e.,
electric standard, electric compact
(120V), vented electric compact (240V),
ventless electric compact (240V),
ventless electric combination washerdryer), 10 OEMs do not currently offer
any consumer clothes dryer models for
the U.S. market that utilize heat pump
technology. Of the 13 OEMs that offer
electric standard clothes dryers, four
OEMs currently offer some models that
meet the max-tech heat pump level. Of
the 10 OEMs that offer electric compact
(120V) clothes dryers, one OEM offers a
model that meets the max-tech level. Of
the five OEMs that offer vented electric
compact (240V) clothes dryers, one
OEM offers models that meet the maxtech level. Of the 13 OEMs that offer
ventless electric compact (240V) clothes
dryers, one OEM offers a model that
meets the max-tech level. Of the five
OEMs that offer ventless electric
combination washer-dryer, two OEMs
offer models that meet the max-tech
level.
A standard that could only be met
using heat pump technology could
require a total renovation of existing
facilities and completely new clothes
dryer platforms for manufacturers that
do not offer heat pump clothes dryers
today. In interviews, two OEMs with
significant market shares stated that
they would require additional facilities
to handle dryer manufacturing under a
standard that could only be met using
heat pump technology. As previously
discussed, implementing inlet air
preheat also represents a major overhaul
of existing vented gas product lines.
DOE expects industry to incur slightly
more re-flooring costs compared to TSL
5, as all display models below max-tech
efficiency would need to be replaced
due to the higher standard. At TSL 6,
reaching max-tech efficiency levels is a
billion-dollar investment for industry.
DOE estimates capital conversion costs
of $1,388.8 million and product
conversion costs of $128.2 million.
Conversion costs total $1,516.9 million.
As with TSL 4 and TSL 5, the large
conversion costs result in free cash flow
dropping below zero in the years before
the standard year. The negative free
cash-flow calculation indicates
manufacturers may need to access cash
reserves or outside capital to finance
conversion efforts.
At this level, the shipment-weighted
average MPC for all consumer clothes
dryers is expected to increase by 64.7
percent relative to the no-new-standards
case shipment-weighted average MPC
for all consumer clothes dryers in 2027.
Given the projected increase in
production costs, DOE expects an
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18221
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
estimated 11-percent drop in shipments
in the year the standard takes effect
compared to the no-new-standards case.
In the preservation-of-gross-marginpercentage scenario, the large increase
in MSP is still outweighed by the
$1,516.9 million in conversion costs and
drop in annual shipments, causing a
moderately negative change in INPV at
TSL 6 under this scenario. Under the
preservation-of-operating-profit
scenario, the manufacturer markup
decreases in 2028, the year after the
analyzed 2027 compliance year. This
large reduction in manufacturer
markup, the $1,516.9 million in
conversion costs incurred by
manufacturers, and the drop in annual
shipments cause a significantly negative
change in INPV at TSL 6 under the
preservation-of-operating-profit
scenario.
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
To quantitatively assess the potential
impacts of amended energy
conservation standards on direct
employment in the consumer clothes
dryer industry, DOE used the GRIM to
estimate the domestic labor
expenditures and number of direct
employees in the no-new-standards case
and in each of the standards cases
during the analysis period. For the
direct final rule, DOE used the most upto-date information available. DOE
calculated these values using statistical
data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021
ASM,117 the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics’ employee compensation
data,118 results of the engineering
analysis, and manufacturer interviews.
Labor expenditures related to product
manufacturing depend on the labor
intensity of the product, the sales
volume, and an assumption that wages
remain fixed in real terms over time.
The total labor expenditures in each
year are calculated by multiplying the
total MPCs by the labor percentage of
MPCs. The total labor expenditures in
the GRIM were then converted to total
production employment levels by
dividing production labor expenditures
by the average fully burdened wage
multiplied by the average number of
hours worked per year per production
worker. To do this, DOE relied on ASM
inputs: Production Workers Annual
Wages, Production Workers Annual
Hours, Production Workers for Pay
Period, and Number of Employees. DOE
also relied on BLS employee
compensation data to determine the
fully burdened wage ratio. The fully
burdened wage ratio factors in paid
leave, supplemental pay, insurance,
retirement and savings, and legally
required benefits.
The number of production employees
is then multiplied by the U.S. labor
percentage to convert total production
employment to total domestic
production employment. The U.S. labor
percentage represents the industry
fraction of domestic manufacturing
production capacity for the covered
product. This value is derived from
manufacturer interviews, product
database analysis, and publicly
available information. For the August
2022 NOPR, DOE estimated that
approximately 58 percent of consumer
clothes dryers were produced
domestically. In support of this direct
final rule analysis, DOE conducted
further research to ensure this estimate
was still accurate. Based on a review of
publicly available data, DOE estimates
that 60 percent of consumer clothes
dryers are produced domestically.
The domestic production employees
estimate covers production line
workers, including line supervisors,
who are directly involved in fabricating
and assembling products within the
OEM facility. Workers performing
services that are closely associated with
production operations, such as
materials-handling tasks using forklifts,
are also included as production labor.
DOE’s estimates only account for
production workers who manufacture
the specific products covered by this
amended rulemaking.
Non-production workers account for
the remainder of the direct employment
figure. The non-production employees
estimate covers domestic workers who
are not directly involved in the
production process, such as sales,
engineering, human resources, and
management. Using the amount of
domestic production workers calculated
above, non-production domestic
employees are extrapolated by
multiplying the ratio of non-production
workers in the industry compared to
production employees. DOE assumes
that this employee distribution ratio
remains constant between the no-newstandards case and standards cases.
Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that
in the absence of new energy
conservation standards, there would be
2,725 domestic production and nonproduction workers for consumer
clothes dryers in 2027. Table V.28
shows the range of the impacts of energy
conservation standards on U.S.
manufacturing employment in the
consumer clothes dryer industry. The
following discussion provides a
qualitative evaluation of the range of
potential impacts presented in Table
V.28.
TABLE V.28—DOMESTIC DIRECT EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYER MANUFACTURERS IN THE
ANALYZED COMPLIANCE YEAR
No-new-standards case
Direct Employment in 2027 * (Production Workers + Non-Production Workers).
Potential Changes in Direct Employment Workers ***.
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
TSL 6
** 2,725
2,729 ................
2,752 ................
2,778 ................
3,106 ................
5,687 ................
5,737
........................
(2,433) to 4 ......
(2,433) to 27 ....
(2,433) to 34 ....
(2,433) to 381 ..
(2,433) to 2,962
(2,433) to 3,012
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
* TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) represents the direct employment in 2028.
** In 2028, the no-new-standards case direct employment estimate is 2,744.
*** DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Parentheses denote negative values.
The direct employment impacts
shown in Table V.29 represent the
potential domestic employment changes
that could result following the
compliance date for the consumer
clothes dryer product classes in this
amended rule. The upper-bound
estimate corresponds to an increase in
the number of domestic workers that
would result from amended energy
conservation standards if manufacturers
continue to produce the same scope of
117 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of
Manufactures: Summary Statistics for Industry
Groups and Industries in the U.S.: 2018–2021.
Available at www.census.gov/programs-surveys/
asm/data/tables.html (last accessed May 23, 2023).
118 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer
Costs for Employee Compensation. March 17, 2023.
Available at www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf
(last accessed June 8, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18222
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
covered products within the United
States after compliance takes effect. The
lower-bound estimate represents the
maximum decrease in production
workers if manufacturing moved to
lower labor-cost countries. Most
manufacturers currently produce at least
a portion of their consumer clothes
dryers in countries with lower labor
costs, and an amended standard that
necessitates large increases in labor
content or large expenditures to retool
facilities could cause manufacturers to
reevaluate domestic production siting
options. However, the Recommended
TSL (i.e., TSL 3) would likely not
require significant increases in labor
content or significant capital
investments. As such, DOE expects that
the likelihood of changes in production
location as a direct result of amended
standards are relatively low.
Additional detail on the analysis of
direct employment can be found in
chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
Additionally, the employment impacts
discussed in this section are
independent of the employment impacts
from the broader U.S. economy, which
are documented in chapter 16 of the
direct final rule TSD.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
As discussed in section V.B.2.a of this
document, implementing the different
design options analyzed for this direct
final rule would require varying levels
of resources and investment. A standard
level that would require the use of heat
pump technology for electric dryers and
combination washer-dryers would
represent the biggest shift in technology
for clothes dryer manufacturing among
all the design options considered for
this analysis. Adopting efficiency levels
that require heat pump technology
would necessitate very large
investments to both redesign products
and update production facilities.
Currently, DOE estimates that
approximately 1 percent of consumer
clothes dryer shipments meet the
analyzed max-tech heat pump efficiency
levels. In interviews, several
manufacturers expressed concern that
the 3-year EPCA-specified time period
between the announcement of a final
rule and the compliance date of the
amended energy conservation standard
might be insufficient to design, test, and
manufacture the necessary number of
products to meet demand.
In interviews, some manufacturers
raised concerns about implementing
inlet air preheat designs. Unlike the
discussions about heat pump
technology, there is very little industry
experience with inlet air preheat
designs. Currently, no models on the
U.S. market incorporate this design
option. Several manufacturers
speculated that implementing inlet air
preheat would require a major overhaul
of existing production facilities and a
significant amount of engineering time.
However, because TSL 3 (i.e., the
Recommended TSL) would not require
heat pump technology or inlet air
preheat designs, DOE does not expect
manufacturers to face long-term
capacity constraints due to the standard
levels detailed in this direct final rule.
Furthermore, at the Recommended TSL,
manufacturers will have a 4-year period
between the announcement of the direct
final rule and the compliance date of the
amended energy conservation standards
to redesign products to meet the
adopted standard levels.
d. Impacts on Subgroups of
Manufacturers
Using average cost assumptions to
develop industry cash flow estimates
may not capture the differential impacts
among subgroups of manufacturers.
Small manufacturers, niche players, or
manufacturers exhibiting a cost
structure that differs substantially from
the industry average could be affected
disproportionately. DOE investigated
small businesses as a manufacturer
subgroup that could be
disproportionally impacted by energy
conservation standards and could merit
additional analysis. DOE did not
identify any other adversely impacted
manufacturer subgroups for this
rulemaking based on the results of the
industry characterization.
DOE analyzes the impacts on small
businesses in a separate analysis for the
standards proposed in the NOPR
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register and in chapter 12 of
the direct final rule TSD. For a
discussion of the impacts on the small
business manufacturer subgroup, see
chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
One aspect of assessing manufacturer
burden involves looking at the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE
standards and the regulatory actions of
other Federal agencies and States that
affect the manufacturers of a covered
product or equipment. While any one
regulation may not impose a significant
burden on manufacturers, the combined
effects of several existing or impending
regulations may have serious
consequences for some manufacturers,
groups of manufacturers, or an entire
industry. Multiple regulations affecting
the same manufacturer can strain profits
and lead companies to abandon product
lines or markets with lower expected
future returns than competing products.
For these reasons, DOE conducts an
analysis of cumulative regulatory
burden as part of its rulemakings
pertaining to appliance efficiency.
For the cumulative regulatory burden
analysis, DOE examines Federal,
product-specific regulations that could
affect consumer clothes dryer
manufacturers that take effect
approximately 3 years before or after the
2028 compliance date. This information
is presented in Table V.29.
TABLE V.29—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS AFFECTING CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYER ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal energy conservation standard
Portable Air Conditioners 85 FR 1378
(January 10, 2020) ...............................
Residential Clothes Washers †88 FR
13520 (March 3, 2023) .........................
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products †88
FR 19382 (March 31, 2023) .................
Automatic Commercial Ice Makers †88
FR 30508 (May 11, 2023) ....................
Dishwashers †88 FR 32514 (May 19,
2023) ....................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
Number of OEMs
affected by
today’s rule **
Number of
OEMs *
PO 00000
Approx.
standards
compliance year
Industry
conversion costs
(Millions)
Industry
conversion
costs/equipment
revenue ***(%)
9
2
2025
$320.9 (2015$)
6.7
19
14
2027
$690.8 (2021$)
5.2
38
5
2029
$126.9 (2021$)
3.1
23
1
2027
$15.9 (2022$)
0.6
21
12
2027
$125.6 (2021$)
2.1
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
18223
TABLE V.29—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS AFFECTING CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYER ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS—Continued
Federal energy conservation standard
Number of OEMs
affected by
today’s rule **
Number of
OEMs *
Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines †88 FR
33968 (May 25, 2023) ..........................
Room Air Conditioners 88 FR 34298
(May 26, 2023) .....................................
Microwave Ovens 88 FR 39912 (June
20, 2023) ..............................................
Consumer Water Heaters †88 FR 49058
(July 28, 2023) .....................................
Commercial Water Heating Equipment
88 FR 69686 (October 6, 2023) ...........
Commercial Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers †88 FR 70196
(October 10, 2023) ...............................
Dehumidifiers †88 FR 76510 (November
6, 2023) ................................................
Consumer Furnaces 88 FR 87502 (December 18, 2023) .................................
Refrigerators, Freezers, and RefrigeratorFreezers 89 FR 3026 (January 17,
2024) ....................................................
Consumer Conventional Cooking Products 89 FR 11434 (February 14, 2024)
Approx.
standards
compliance year
Industry
conversion costs
(Millions)
Industry
conversion
costs/equipment
revenue ***(%)
5
1
2028
$1.5 (2022$)
0.2
8
4
2026
$24.8 (2021$)
0.4
18
11
2026
$46.1 (2021$)
0.7
22
3
2030
$228.1 (2022$)
1.3
15
1
2026
$42.7 (2022$)
5.3
83
4
2028
$226.4 (2022$)
1.6
20
3
2028
$6.9 (2022$)
0.4
15
1
2029
$162.0 (2022$)
1.8
63
11
‡ 2029 and 2030
$830.3 (2022$)
1.3
35
8
2028
$66.7 (2022$)
0.3
* This column presents the total number of OEMs identified in the energy conservation standard rule that is contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
** This column presents the number of OEMs producing consumer clothes dryers that are also listed as OEMs in the identified energy conservation standard that is contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of equipment revenue during the conversion period. Industry conversion
costs are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the
revenue from just the covered product/equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs
are made and lasts from the publication year of a final rule to the compliance year of the energy conservation standard. The conversion period
typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on the rulemaking.
† These rulemakings are at the NOPR stage, and all values are subject to change until finalized through publication of a final rule.
‡ For the refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers energy conservation standards direct final rule, the compliance year (2029 or 2030)
varies by product class.
As shown in Table V.29, the
rulemakings with the largest overlap of
consumer clothes dryer OEMs include
residential clothes washers, consumer
conventional cooking products,
dishwashers, refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, and
miscellaneous refrigeration products,
which are all part of the multi-product
Joint Agreement submitted by interested
parties.119 As detailed in the Joint
Agreement, the signatories indicated
that their recommendations should be
considered a ‘‘complete package.’’ The
signatories further stated that ‘‘each part
of this agreement is contingent upon the
other parts being implemented.’’ (Joint
Agreement, No. 55, p. 3)
The multi-product Joint Agreement
states the ‘‘jointly recommended
compliance dates will achieve the
overall energy and economic benefits of
this agreement while allowing necessary
lead-times for manufacturers to redesign
products and retool manufacturing
plants to meet the recommended
standards across product categories.’’
(Joint Agreement, No. 55 at p. 2) The
staggered compliance dates help
mitigate manufacturers’ concerns about
their ability to allocate sufficient
resources to comply with multiple
concurrent amended standards and
about the need to align compliance
dates for products that are typically
designed or sold as matched pairs (such
as residential clothes washers and
consumer clothes dryers). See section
IV.J.3 of this document for stakeholder
comments about cumulative regulatory
burden. See Table V.30 for a comparison
of the estimated compliance dates based
on EPCA-specified timelines and the
compliance dates detailed in the Joint
Agreement.
TABLE V.30—EXPECTED COMPLIANCE DATES FOR MULTI-PRODUCT JOINT AGREEMENT
Estimated
compliance
year based on
EPCA
requirements
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Rulemaking
Consumer Clothes Dryers ............................................................................................
Residential Clothes Washers .......................................................................................
Consumer Conventional Cooking Products .................................................................
119 The microwave ovens energy conservation
standards final rule (88 FR 39912), which has 11
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
2027
2027
2027
Compliance year in the joint agreement
2028
2028
2028
overlapping OEMs, was published prior to the joint
submission of the multi-product Joint Agreement.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18224
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.30—EXPECTED COMPLIANCE DATES FOR MULTI-PRODUCT JOINT AGREEMENT—Continued
Estimated
compliance
year based on
EPCA
requirements
Rulemaking
Dishwashers .................................................................................................................
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers .....................................................
2027
2027
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products ..........................................................................
2029
Compliance year in the joint agreement
2027 *
2029 or 2030 depending on the product
class.
2029
* Estimated compliance year. The Joint Agreement states, ‘‘3 years after the publication of a final rule in the Federal Register.’’ (Joint Agreement, No. 55 at p. 2)
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
This section presents DOE’s estimates
of the national energy savings and the
NPV of consumer benefits that would
result from each of the TSLs considered
as potential amended standards.
To estimate the energy savings
attributable to potential amended
standards for consumer clothes dryers,
DOE compared clothes dryer energy
consumption under the no-newstandards case to their anticipated
energy consumption under each TSL.
The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of products purchased in
the 30-year period that begins in the
year of anticipated compliance with
amended standards (2027–2056).120
Table V.31 presents DOE’s projections
of the national energy savings for each
TSL considered for consumer clothes
dryers. The savings were calculated
using the approach described in section
IV.H.2 of this document.
TABLE V.31—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
(2027–2056) *
Trial Standard Level
1
I
2
I
3
I
4
I
5
I
6
quads
Primary energy .........................................
FFC energy ..............................................
0.55
1.53
0.57 I
1.58 I
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028–2057.
OMB Circular A–4 requires agencies
to present analytical results including
separate schedules of the monetized
benefits and costs that show the type
and timing of benefits and costs.
Circular A–4 also directs agencies to
consider the variability of key elements
underlying the estimates of benefits and
costs. For this rulemaking, DOE
undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9
years, rather than 30 years, of product
2.57
2.66 I
shipments. The choice of a 9-year
period is a proxy for the timeline in
EPCA for the review of certain energy
conservation standards and potential
revision of and compliance with such
revised standards.121 The review
timeframe established in EPCA is
generally not synchronized with the
product lifetime, product manufacturing
cycles, or other factors specific to
consumer clothes dryers. Thus, such
3.41
3.52 I
9.42
9.70 I
9.47
9.76
results are presented for informational
purposes only and are not indicative of
any change in DOE’s analytical
methodology. The NES sensitivity
analysis results based on a 9-year
analytical period are presented in Table
V.32. The impacts are counted over the
lifetime of consumer clothes dryers
purchased during the period 2027–
2035.122
TABLE V.32—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
(2027–2035) *
Trial Standard Level
1
I
2
I
3
I
4
I
5
I
6
quads
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Primary energy .........................................
0.19
120 The analysis period for TSL 3 (the
Recommended TSL) is 2028–2057.
121 EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at
least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain
products, a 3-year period after any new standard is
promulgated before compliance is required, except
that in no case may any new standards be required
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
I
0.54
I
0.92
I
within 6 years of the compliance date of the
previous standards. While adding a 6-year review
to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years,
DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any
time within the 6-year period and that the 3-year
compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop.
A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1.17
I
2.80
I
2.81
given the variability that occurs in the timing of
standards reviews and the fact that for some
products, the compliance period is 5 years rather
than 3 years.
122 The analysis period for TSL 3 (the
Recommended TSL) is 2028–2036.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18225
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.32—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
(2027–2035) *—Continued
Trial Standard Level
1
I
2
I
3
4
I
I
5
I
6
quads
FFC energy ..............................................
0.20
0.56
I
0.96
I
1.21
I
2.89
I
2.90
I
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028–2036.
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs
and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of
the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from the
TSLs considered for consumer clothes
dryers. In accordance with OMB’s
guidelines on regulatory analysis, DOE
calculated NPV using both a 7-percent
and a 3-percent real discount rate. Table
V.33 shows the consumer NPV results
with impacts counted over the lifetime
of products purchased during the period
2027–2056.
TABLE V.33—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS; 30 YEARS
OF SHIPMENTS (2027–2056) *
Trial Standard Level
1
I
2
I
3
4
I
I
5
I
6
billion 2022$
3 percent ..................................................
7 percent ..................................................
4.07
12.33
1.92 I
5.88 I
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028–2057.
The NPV results based on the
aforementioned 9-year analytical period
are presented in Table V.34. The
impacts are counted over the lifetime of
20.08
9.23 I
products purchased during the period
2027–2035. As mentioned previously,
such results are presented for
informational purposes only and are not
19.85
8.42 I
31.21
9.03 I
30.50
8.58
indicative of any change in DOE’s
analytical methodology or decision
criteria.
TABLE V.34 CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS; 9 YEARS OF
SHIPMENTS (2027–2035) *
Trial Standard Level
1
I
2
I
3
4
I
I
5
I
6
billion 2022$
1.78
5.46
1.07 I
3.31 I
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028–2036.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
3 percent ..................................................
7 percent ..................................................
The previous results reflect the use of
a default trend to estimate the change in
price for consumer clothes dryers over
the analysis period (see section IV.F.1 of
this document). DOE also conducted a
sensitivity analysis that considered one
scenario with a lower rate of price
decline than the reference case and one
scenario with a higher rate of price
decline than the reference case. The
results of these alternative cases are
presented in appendix 10C of the direct
final rule TSD. In the high-price-decline
case, the NPV of consumer benefits is
higher than in the default case. In the
lower-price-decline case, the NPV of
consumer benefits is lower than in the
default case.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
9.08
5.28 I
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
DOE estimates that amended energy
conservation standards for consumer
clothes dryers will reduce energy
expenditures for consumers of those
products, with the resulting net savings
being redirected to other forms of
economic activity. These expected shifts
in spending and economic activity
could affect the demand for labor. As
described in section IV.N of this
document, DOE used an input/output
model of the U.S. economy to estimate
indirect employment impacts of the
TSLs that DOE considered. There are
uncertainties involved in projecting
employment impacts, especially
changes in the later years of the
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
8.80
4.77 I
13.64
5.69 I
13.41
5.49
analysis. Therefore, DOE generated
results for near-term timeframes (2027–
2033),123 where these uncertainties are
reduced.
The results suggest that the adopted
standards are likely to have a negligible
impact on the net demand for labor in
the economy. The net change in jobs is
so small that it would be imperceptible
in national labor statistics and might be
offset by other, unanticipated effects on
employment. Chapter 16 of the direct
final rule TSD presents detailed results
regarding anticipated indirect
employment impacts.
123 The analysis period for TSL 3 (the
Recommended TSL) is 2028–2034.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
18226
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of
Products
As discussed in section III.E.1.d of
this document, DOE has concluded that
the standards adopted in this direct
final rule will not lessen the utility or
performance of the consumer clothes
dryers under consideration in this
rulemaking. Manufacturers of these
products currently offer units that meet
or exceed the adopted standards.
In response to the August 2022 NOPR,
AHAM stated that DOE must ensure that
amended standards do not lengthen
cycle times, and AHAM believes that in
order to achieve the test procedure’s
current FMC requirement and meet the
standards proposed in the August 2022
NOPR, cycle lengths will get longer.
Whirlpool commented that the
strategies used in consumer clothes
dryers certified under appendix D2
often lower the overall average drying
temperature and extend the drying time
to increase the CEF, while minimally
compliant consumer clothes dryers
certified under appendix D1 typically
achieve a higher overall temperature
and shorten the drying process. Citing
DOE’s test sample, Whirlpool stated that
models certified using appendix D1
without wrinkle prevention mode
activated had an average drying time of
56 minutes when tested to appendix D2,
while models certified using appendix
D2 had an average drying time of 66
minutes, and ENERGY STAR-qualified
products had an average drying time of
71 minutes, the additional time needed
to meet the 2-percent FMC requirement.
Whirlpool stated that DOE’s statutory
criteria are not met to proceed with the
standards proposed in the August 2022
NOPR due to a clear lessening of
performance and utility of the product
associated with longer drying times.
(AHAM, No. 46 at pp. 8–10; Whirlpool,
No. 53 at p. 4)
DOE’s test data do not support the
assertion by AHAM and Whirlpool that
amended standards would necessitate
longer drying times. In DOE’s test
sample, the consumer clothes dryers
certified under appendix D1 have an
average cycle time of 61 minutes when
tested in accordance with appendix D2.
In comparison, among the units in
DOE’s test sample that are certified
under appendix D2 at or above the
amended standard, multiple units have
a cycle time less than 60 minutes. This
indicates that the standards adopted by
this direct final rule will not necessitate
any increase in cycle time compared to
typical cycle times currently associated
with baseline consumer clothes dryers.
DOE notes that a 60-minute cycle time
is notably less than the 80-minute cycle
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
time required for ENERGY STAR
qualification.124 DOE further notes that
cycle time is one of many product
attributes that consumers consider when
purchasing a clothes dryer, such as
drying performance and fabric care. As
further examples, Consumer Reports—
which DOE recognizes is one popular
resource for consumers seeking
independent reviews of consumer
products—highlights the following
product attributes for consumer clothes
dryers in addition to cycle time: drying
performance, ergonomics, noise level,
capacity, drum material, compatibility
with a drying rack, availability of
custom programs, availability of a steam
option, moisture sensing capability,
Wifi connectivity, and stackability with
an accompanying clothes washer.125
As noted in section IV.H.2 of this
document, DOE has observed a steady
decline in annual consumer clothes
dryer cycles over the past 15 years,
despite the implementation of more
stringent consumer clothes dryer energy
conservation standards, which is an
indication that consumers are not
rerunning their clothes dryers.
Additionally, the amended standards
correspond to the current ENERGY
STAR efficiency level for both electric
and gas standard clothes dryers, which
requires testing in accordance with
appendix D2 and which ensures
consumer-accepted dryness levels as
discussed in section II.B.2 of this
document. As noted above, DOE does
not expect increased cycle times
compared to typical cycle times
currently associated with baseline
consumer clothes dryers as a result of
adopted standards. In addition, DOE
does not expect consumers to re-run the
consumer clothes dryer upon
completion of the initial run as a result
of the amended standards being adopted
in this direct final rule. DOE therefore
does not expect a lessening in
performance or utility as a result of the
standards adopted by this direct final
rule. As previously discussed, on
February 14, 2024, DOE received a
second joint statement from the same
group of stakeholders that submitted the
Joint Agreement in which the
signatories reaffirmed the standards
recommended in the Joint
Agreement.126 In particular, the letter
124 ENERGY STAR criteria for consumer clothes
dryers can be found at: www.energystar.gov/
products/appliances/clothes_dryers/key_product_
criteria.
125 Consumer Reports ratings of consumer clothes
dryers available at www.consumerreports.org/
appliances/clothes-dryers (last accessed February 5,
2024).
126 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE–2014-BTSTD-0058-0058.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
states that DOE’s test data show, and
industry experience agrees, that the
recommended standard levels for
consumer clothes dryers will not result
in significant differences in cycle time
and will adequately dry clothes.
Whirlpool stated that due to the core
technological differences in energysaving heat pump clothes dryers (such
as lower air temperatures, heat
retention, and water condensing
systems) compared to conventional
resistive heater clothes dryers, harderto-dry fabrics need additional time in a
heat pump clothes dryer to remove their
embedded moisture and some heat
pump clothes dryers may not get down
to the required FMC. (Whirlpool, No. 53
at pp. 12–13)
With regard to Whirlpool’s concerns
about the performance of heat pump
clothes dryers for certain hard-to-dry
fabrics, DOE notes that the standards
adopted by this direct final rule do not
require the use of heat pump
technology. AHAM stated that longer
consumer clothes dryer cycle times may
create different cycle times between
clothes washers and clothes dryers,
which may result in different consumer
behaviors. According to AHAM,
different operating times in laundry
products may result in the increased use
of wrinkle control cycles or redrying
loads to avoid wrinkled clothes
resulting from the clothes sitting in the
clothes dryer for more extended periods
of time, or in consumers re-washing
clothes that were not transferred to the
clothes dryer due to a previous load still
being dried, ultimately resulting in
increased water and energy use. AHAM
also stated that consumers could turn to
using other cycles, thus undercutting
savings designed to be achieved through
use of the normal cycle. AHAM and
Whirlpool therefore stated that DOE
should evaluate the impact of amended
standards on drying times as cycle
length is a performance feature
associated with consumer preferences
that consumers are unlikely to accept if
cycles are too long and do not match
washing times. AHAM also disagreed
with DOE’s use of the maximum drying
time of 80 minutes in the current
ENERGY STAR specification as a
benchmark for its analysis, asserting
that the specification was not based on
sufficient supporting or consumerrelevant data. (AHAM, No. 46 at pp. 8–
10)
As previously stated, DOE does not
expect a shift in consumer drying times
associated with amended standards
beyond what is typically experienced by
consumers of baseline consumer clothes
dryers. Additionally, DOE does not
expect that the amended standards
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
would result in longer drying cycles
given the prevalence on the market of
consumer clothes dryers that meet the
amended standard with cycle times
comparable to those of current baseline
models, regardless of the longer cycle
time of 80 minutes allowed in the
ENERGY STAR specification. Therefore,
DOE has no basis to conclude that the
amended standards would alter the
existing relative cycle times between
consumer clothes dryers and clothes
washers.
The test data presented in the August
2022 NOPR contradict certain
conclusions and presumptions made by
DOE in previous rulemakings with
regard to cycle times. In particular, in a
NOPR published on August 13, 2020
(‘‘August 2020 NOPR’’), which preceded
the December 2020 Final Rule, DOE
stated its presumption that the shortest
possible cycle times currently available
on the market represent the models for
which certain manufacturers have
prioritized cycle time while maintaining
adequate drying performance and other
performance aspects of consumer
clothes dryers; and that based on this
presumption, the current energy
conservation standards may have
discouraged manufacturers from
bringing models to the market with
cycle times of 30 minutes or less. 85 FR
49297, 49305 reiterated at 85 FR 81359,
81361. DOE further asserted that
offering products with shorter cycle
times would require more per-cycle
energy use than would be permitted
under the current standards in order to
maintain the same level of performance
in other areas. 85 FR 49297, 49299.
DOE has determined, contrary to the
August 2020 NOPR’s assumptions, that
current energy conservation standards
have not prevented the sale of consumer
clothes dryers with shorter cycle times.
DOE’s test data presented in the August
2022 NOPR indicate no discernable
correlation between efficiency level and
cycle time for vented electric standard
dryers or vented gas clothes dryers (i.e.,
the consumer clothes dryer product
classes subject to the December 2020
Final Rule) Indeed, for vented electric
standard clothes dryers, the most
efficient model in DOE’s test sample has
a shorter cycle time (80 minutes) than
the least efficient minimally-compliant
model in DOE’s test sample (98
minutes). The models with the lowest
cycle times of 36 and 39 minutes both
achieve higher efficiency level EL 3.
Similarly, for vented gas clothes dryers,
the most efficient model in DOE’s test
sample has a cycle time of 66 minutes,
substantially similar to the baseline unit
with a cycle time of 65 minutes. The
models with the lowest cycle times of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
35 and 36 minutes both achieve higher
efficiency level EL 2. Based on this data,
DOE reaches a different conclusion than
was reached in the December 2020 Final
Rule. In particular, noting that DOE’s
data show no discernable correlation
between efficiency and cycle time, this
data does not support DOE’s prior
assertion that the current consumer
clothes dryer energy conservation
standards may be precluding
manufacturers from bringing models to
the market with substantially shorter
cycle times, or DOE’s prior presumption
that offering products with shorter cycle
times would require more per-cycle
energy use than would be permitted
under the current standards.
Furthermore, in the second joint
statement submitted February 14, 2024,
by the signatories of the Joint
Agreement, the signatories acknowledge
that DOE’s investigative testing shows
that there is no significant difference in
cycle time between consumer clothes
dryers in DOE’s data set that are less
efficient than the recommended
standards and those that just meet the
recommended standard levels. The
signatories noted, for example, that the
difference in average cycle time is only
about 2 minutes between electric
standard clothes dryers in DOE’s data
set that are less efficient than the
recommended standard and those that
just meet the recommended standard
(with CEFs of 3.93 and 3.94). Moreover,
the signatories stated that the electric
standard clothes dryers in DOE’s data
set that are less efficient than the
recommended standards include models
with longer cycle times than those that
meet the recommended standards,
suggesting that cycle time is tied to
more than efficiency alone.
Finally, for the reasons previously
discussed, DOE has also determined
that the standards adopted in this direct
final rule will not result in any
significant differences in drying cycle
times.
AHAM and Whirlpool commented
that longer cycle times also cause more
wear and tear on clothing as well as on
the product itself and can decrease the
lifetime of the product and increase the
need for repair. Whirlpool stated that
longer cycles lead to consumer
perception that their clothes are being
damaged and potentially lead
consumers to interrupt consumer
clothes dryer cycles to prevent garment
damage, depending on different fabric
types/thicknesses. Whirlpool
commented that when presented with
the concept of a lower-heat and slowerdrying cycle that would save energy,
consumers were not enthusiastic and
did not trust that such a drying strategy
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18227
would prevent garment damage or
match clothes washer cycle times.
Whirlpool stated that, according to its
provided research focused on thread
removal counts on test cloth, there is the
possibility of increased fabric damage
with longer drying times when the test
cloth is in a semi-saturated state.
Whirlpool commented that every 30
minutes of drying time for semisaturated fabric is equivalent to 2.4
times the amount of fabric damage that
would have been seen with one
complete wash cycle in a front-load
clothes washer. Whirlpool commented
that this research showed 17-percent
thread removal from 7 minutes of drying
under appendix D1 testing and 40percent thread removal from 30 minutes
of drying under appendix D2 testing.
Whirlpool stated that according to these
results, appendix D2 testing resulted in
a longer drying time in which the test
cloth was in a semi-saturated state, as
well as 2.4 times the fabric damage as
a consumer clothes dryer cycle under
appendix D1 testing. According to
Whirlpool, the longer the drying cycle is
drawn out at lower temperatures, the
more total friction and thread removal
occurs as the semi-saturated clothes rub
together when tumbling in the drum.
Whirlpool asserted that fabric care is
partially a story of cycle temperature
and mechanical damage from extended
drying times, and although there may be
some benefit from lower temperatures,
the potentially increased mechanical
damage from longer cycles cannot be
ignored, nor the additional cost burden
associated with consumers replacing
damaged or worn clothing that was not
factored into DOE’s analysis. AHAM
stated that manufacturers would also
have to plan for increased wear and tear
on the product itself with more robust
components; therefore, AHAM
disagreed with DOE’s conclusion that
repair and maintenance costs would not
change with the proposed standard.
Both AHAM and Whirlpool stated that
DOE should account for the impacts of
energy conservation standards
associated with increased drying times
on fabric care and the additional cost
burden in its analysis. (AHAM, No. 46
at pp. 9–10; Whirlpool, No. 53 at p. 5)
The fabric care data Whirlpool shared
shows increased thread removal from
drying under appendix D2 testing
compared to testing under appendix D1
for the same unit, which according to
Whirlpool is due to longer drying times
when the test cloth is in a semisaturated state. However, DOE notes
that amended standards would not
require any specific drying strategy (e.g.,
longer cycle times, longer drying time at
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18228
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
the semi-saturated state, lower drying
temperatures) to ensure the FMC
requirement or amended standards are
met nor preclude shorter drying times at
the semi-saturated state. Additionally,
DOE notes that this testing did not
compare the thread removal from drying
for units with different efficiencies, but
rather the same unit tested under two
different tests, so DOE is not aware of
any data substantiating a correlation
between increased efficiency and thread
removal. As previously noted, appendix
D2 accounts for all consumer clothes
dryers with and without automatic
termination control and is therefore
more representative of consumer use
than appendix D1, and depending on
the automatic termination control
system, the appendix D2 cycle time may
be longer or shorter than that when
testing in accordance with appendix D1.
Furthermore, DOE is not aware of any
information indicating that the higher
efficiency levels associated with
amended standards would increase
cycle time beyond what is typically
experienced by consumers of baseline
consumer clothes dryers, and has
determined that existing cycle times can
be met with consumer clothes dryers
capable of meeting the amended
standards. Therefore, DOE has
concluded the recommend standards
that are the subject of this direct final
rule would not result in increased
impacts on fabric care and product wear
and tear as AHAM and Whirlpool
suggested. Additionally, DOE notes that
AHAM recommended the efficiency
levels proposed in the August 2022
NOPR for adoption in this direct final
rule. DOE, however, will continue to
review relevant data on potential
impacts on fabric care and product wear
and tear and may consider it in future
rulemakings.
For the reasons discussed throughout
this section and based on the additional
confirming statements from the Joint
Agreement signatories, DOE has
concluded that the standards adopted in
this direct final rule will not lessen the
utility or performance of the consumer
clothes dryers under consideration in
this rulemaking.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
DOE considered any lessening of
competition that would be likely to
result from new or amended standards.
As discussed in section III.E.1.e of this
document, EPCA directs the Attorney
General of the United States (‘‘Attorney
General’’) to determine the impact, if
any, of any lessening of competition
likely to result from a proposed
standard and to transmit such
determination in writing to the
Secretary within 60 days of the
publication of a proposed rule, together
with an analysis of the nature and
extent of the impact. To assist the
Attorney General in making this
determination, DOE is providing the
DOJ with copies of this direct final rule
and the TSD for review.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve
Energy
Enhanced energy efficiency, where
economically justified, improves the
Nation’s energy security, strengthens the
economy, and reduces the
environmental impacts (costs) of energy
production. Reduced electricity demand
due to energy conservation standards is
also likely to reduce the cost of
maintaining the reliability of the
electricity system, particularly during
peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the
direct final rule TSD presents the
estimated impacts on electricity
generating capacity, relative to the nonew-standards case, for the TSLs that
DOE considered in this rulemaking.
Energy conservation resulting from
potential energy conservation standards
for consumer clothes dryers is expected
to yield environmental benefits in the
form of reduced emissions of certain air
pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table
V.35 provides DOE’s estimate of
cumulative emissions reductions
expected to result from the TSLs
considered in this rulemaking. The
emissions were calculated using the
multipliers discussed in section IV.K of
this document. DOE reports annual
emissions reductions for each TSL in
chapter 13 of the direct final rule TSD.
TABLE V.35—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS SHIPPED IN 2027–2056 *
Trial Standard Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
Power Sector Emissions
CO2 (million metric tons) .........................
CH4 (thousand tons) ................................
N2O (thousand tons) ................................
NOX (thousand tons) ................................
SO2 (thousand tons) ................................
Hg (tons) ..................................................
11.2
0.7
0.1
6.4
2.9
0.02
30.8
2.0
0.3
17.4
8.3
0.06
51.5
3.3
0.4
29.3
13.6
0.09
66.5
4.4
0.6
36.6
18.7
0.13
170.9
12.0
1.7
87.6
52.4
0.36
171.7
12.1
1.7
88.0
52.7
0.36
5.6
524.3
0.021
87.3
0.3
0.0003
7.0
657.1
0.003
110.0
0.3
0.0005
17.7
1,633
0.1
276.5
1.0
0.0013
17.8
1,642
0.1
277.9
1.0
0.0013
57.1
527.6
0.5
116.5
13.9
0.10
73.5
661.5
0.6
146.6
19.0
0.13
188.6
1,645
1.7
364.1
53.3
0.36
189.5
1,654
1.7
365.9
53.6
0.37
Upstream Emissions
CO2 (million metric tons) .........................
CH4 (thousand tons) ................................
N2O (thousand tons) ................................
NOX (thousand tons) ................................
SO2 (thousand tons) ................................
Hg (tons) ..................................................
1.2
114.0
0.005
18.9
0.1
0.0001
3.3
309.4
0.001
51.6
0.2
0.0002
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Total FFC Emissions
CO2 (million metric tons) .........................
CH4 (thousand tons) ................................
N2O (thousand tons) ................................
NOX (thousand tons) ................................
SO2 (thousand tons) ................................
Hg (tons) ..................................................
12.4
114.7
0.1
25.4
3.0
0.02
34.1
311.4
0.3
69.0
8.4
0.06
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028–2057.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
As part of the analysis for this rule,
DOE estimated monetary benefits likely
to result from the reduced emissions of
CO2 that DOE estimated for each of the
considered TSLs for consumer clothes
dryers. Section IV.L of this document
discusses the estimated SC–CO2 values
that DOE used. Table V.36 presents the
value of CO2 emissions reduction at
each TSL for each of the SC–CO2 cases.
18229
The time series of annual values is
presented for the selected TSL in
chapter 14 of the direct final rule TSD.
TABLE V.36—PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS SHIPPED IN 2027–
2056 *
SC–CO2 case discount rate and statistics
TSL
5% Average
3% Average
2.5% Average
3% 95th
percentile
(million 2022$)
1
2
3
4
5
6
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
136
376
613
808
2,012
2,022
565
1,559
2,566
3,353
8,435
8,479
876
2,415
3,985
5,197
13,115
13,183
1,718
4,739
7,800
10,192
25,622
25,753
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028–2057.
As discussed in section IV.L.2 of this
document, DOE estimated the climate
benefits likely to result from the
reduced emissions of methane and N2O
that DOE estimated for each of the
considered TSLs for consumer clothes
dryers. Table V.37 presents the value of
the CH4 emissions reduction at each
TSL, and Table V.38 presents the value
of the N2O emissions reduction at each
TSL. The time series of annual values is
presented for the selected TSL in
chapter 14 of the direct final rule TSD.
TABLE V.37—PRESENT VALUE OF METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS SHIPPED IN
2027–2056 *
SC–CH4 case discount rate and statistics
TSL
5% Average
3% Average
2.5% Average
3% 95th
percentile
(million 2022$)
1
2
3
4
5
6
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
57
156
259
331
801
805
165
450
754
954
2,342
2,354
229
623
1,046
1,321
3,252
3,268
438
1,193
1,996
2,527
6,200
6,230
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028–2057.
TABLE V.38—PRESENT VALUE OF NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS SHIPPED IN
2027–2056 *
SC–N2O case discount rate and statistics
TSL
5% Average
3% Average
2.5% Average
3% 95th
percentile
(million 2022$)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
1
2
3
4
5
6
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
0.4
1.2
1.9
2.7
7.1
7.1
1.6
4.6
7.5
10.3
27.6
27.8
2.5
7.1
11.6
15.8
42.5
42.7
4.4
12.3
20.0
27.4
73.6
74.0
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028–2057.
DOE is well aware that scientific and
economic knowledge about the
contribution of CO2 and other GHG
emissions to changes in the future
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
global climate and the potential
resulting damages to the global and U.S.
economy continues to evolve rapidly.
DOE, together with other Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
agencies, will continue to review
methodologies for estimating the
monetary value of reductions in CO2
and other GHG emissions. This ongoing
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18230
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
review will consider the comments on
this subject that are part of the public
record for this and other rulemakings, as
well as other methodological
assumptions and issues. DOE notes,
however, that the adopted standards
would be economically justified even
without inclusion of monetized benefits
of reduced GHG emissions.
DOE also estimated the monetary
value of the economic benefits
associated with NOX and SO2 emissions
reductions anticipated to result from the
considered TSLs for consumer clothes
dryers. The dollar-per-ton values that
DOE used are discussed in section
IV.L.2 of this document. Table V.39
presents the present value for NOX
emissions reductions for each TSL
calculated using 7-percent and 3percent discount rates, and Table V.40
presents similar results for SO2
emissions reductions. The results in
these tables reflect application of EPA’s
low dollar-per-ton values, which DOE
used to be conservative. The time series
of annual values is presented for the
selected TSL in chapter 14 of the direct
final rule TSD.
TABLE V.39—PRESENT VALUE OF
NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR
CONSUMER
CLOTHES
DRYERS
SHIPPED IN 2027–2056 *—Continued
TSL
7% Discount
rate
3% Discount
rate
million 2022$
2
3
4
5
6
................
................
................
................
................
1,391
2,217
2,962
7,133
7,168
3,216
5,305
6,887
17,135
17,222
Note: Results are based on the low benefitper-ton values.
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028–2057.
and SO2 are captured in the values
above, and additional unquantified
benefits from the reductions of those
pollutants as well as from the reduction
of direct particulate matter (‘‘PM’’) and
other co-pollutants may be significant.
DOE has not included monetary benefits
of the reduction of Hg emissions
because the amount of reduction is very
small.
7. Other Factors
The Secretary of Energy, in
determining whether a standard is
economically justified, may consider
any other factors that the Secretary
deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors
were considered in this analysis.
TABLE V.40—PRESENT VALUE OF SO2 8. Summary of Economic Impacts
EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONTable V.41 presents the NPV values
SUMER CLOTHES DRYERS SHIPPED that result from adding the estimates of
IN 2027–2056 *
the economic benefits resulting from
reduced GHG and NOX and SO2
emissions to the NPV of consumer
benefits calculated for each TSL
considered in this rulemaking. The
million 2022$
consumer benefits are domestic U.S.
1 ................
93
209 monetary savings that occur as a result
TABLE V.39—PRESENT VALUE OF
2 ................
265
594 of purchasing the covered products and
NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR 3 ................
415
963 are measured for the lifetime of
590
1,333
CONSUMER
CLOTHES
DRYERS 4 ................
products shipped during the period
5 ................
1,541
3,630
127 The climate benefits
SHIPPED IN 2027–2056 *
6 ................
1,550
3,651 2027–2056.
associated with reduced GHG emissions
7% Discount
3% Discount
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Rec- resulting from the adopted standards are
TSL
rate
rate
ommended TSL) is 2028–2057.
global benefits and are also calculated
Not all the public health and
based on the lifetime of consumer
million 2022$
environmental benefits from the
clothes dryers shipped during the
1 ................
502
1,167 reduction of greenhouse gases, NOX,
period 2027–2056.128
TSL
7% Discount
rate
3% Discount
rate
TABLE V.41—CONSUMER NPV COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF CLIMATE BENEFITS AND HEALTH BENEFITS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
TSL 6
Using 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$)
5% Average SC–GHG case ....................
3% Average SC–GHG case ....................
2.5% Average SC–GHG case .................
3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case ..........
5.6
6.2
6.6
7.6
16.7
18.2
19.2
22.1
27.2
29.7
31.4
36.2
29.2
32.4
34.6
40.8
54.8
62.8
68.4
83.9
54.2
62.2
67.9
83.4
20.5
28.5
34.1
49.6
20.1
28.2
33.8
49.4
Using 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$)
5% Average SC–GHG case ....................
3% Average SC–GHG case ....................
2.5% Average SC–GHG case .................
3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case ..........
2.7
3.3
3.6
4.7
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
C. Conclusion
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
127 The analysis period for TSL 3 (the
Recommended TSL) is 2028–2057.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
8.1
9.6
10.6
13.5
12.7
15.2
16.9
21.7
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
13.1
16.3
18.5
24.7
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
128 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
amended standard must also result in
significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
For this direct final rule, DOE
considered the impacts of amended
standards for consumer clothes dryers at
each TSL, beginning with the maximum
technologically feasible level, to
determine whether that level was
economically justified. Where the maxtech 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.
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,
between renters and owners, or builders
and purchasers). Having less-thanperfect 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.
It is important to recognize that while
DOE is promulgating two separate
regulatory actions for energy efficiency
standards for residential clothes
washers and consumer dryers, clothes
washers and dryers are complementary
products, and they are sometimes sold
and purchased together as joint goods.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
This type of consumer purchasing
behavior is not typical of DOE energy
efficiency standards. These products are
available in a variety of combinations
and the efficiency and/or product class
of one product does not restrict the
efficiency and/or product class of the
other. The efficiency levels are
independent of each other. Hence, DOE
does not directly model the joint
purchasing decision of clothes washers
and dryers in this rule. It is possible that
if only one machine fails, consumers
could replace one machine or could
replace both machines jointly. If
consumers replace both machines when
one fails, aggregate lifecycle costs would
be the combination of impacts as
presented in both final rules.
Consumers value a variety of
attributes in consumer clothes dryers.
These attributes can factor into
consumer purchasing decisions along
with installation and operating cost. For
example, DOE understands certain
consumers make purchasing decisions
on non-efficiency attributes such as
color or other visual features such as
control panel layout, which may overlap
with efficiency considerations related to
and a potential preference for
mechanical over electronic controls.
One specific attribute related to the
joint use of clothes washers and dryers
worth noting is the moisture content of
clothes as consumers wash and dry
them. DOE recognizes that amended
clothes washer standards could result in
less total moisture needing to be
removed from the clothing in a dryer,
whereas amended clothes dryer
standards could result in a less energyintensive process for removing that
moisture. As explained on page 99, the
amended dryer test procedure in
appendix D2 includes incoming RMC
values (i.e., a starting lower moisture
content for the load) that are more
representative of the resulting moisture
content seen in high-efficiency clothes
washers. Due to the uniqueness of the
Joint Recommendation where the
clothes washer and dryer proposals and
compliance dates were aligned, the
dryer rulemaking encompasses these
lower initial moisture values as a
starting point for the energy use
analysis, so the effect of faster spin
speeds resulting in less ‘‘wet’’ clothes is
already captured by DOE. The relative
comparison of efficiency levels for a
given product would remain the same,
even if the baseline energy consumption
were adjusted due to an increase in
efficiency in the complementary
product.
General considerations for consumer
welfare and preferences as well as the
special cases of complementary goods
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18231
are areas DOE plans to explore in a
forthcoming RFI related to the agency’s
updates to its overall analytic
framework.
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 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. 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.129
While DOE is not prepared at present
to provide a fuller quantifiable
framework for estimating the benefits
and costs of changes in consumer
purchase decisions due to an energy
conservation standard, DOE is
committed to developing a framework
that can support empirical quantitative
tools for improved assessment of the
consumer welfare impacts of appliance
standards. DOE has posted a paper that
discusses the issue of consumer welfare
impacts of appliance energy
conservation standards, and potential
enhancements to the methodology by
which these impacts are defined and
estimated in the regulatory process.130
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for Consumer Clothes Dryer
Standards
Table V.42 and Table V.43 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
129 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.
130 Sanstad, A. H. Notes on the Economics of
Household Energy Consumption and Technology
Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_
theory.pdf (last accessed July 1, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18232
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
compliance with amended standards
(2027–2056).131 The energy savings,
emissions reductions, and value of
emissions reductions refer to full-fuelcycle results. DOE is presenting
monetized benefits of GHG emissions
presented by the Interagency Working
Group. The efficiency levels contained
in each TSL are described in section
V.A of this document.
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
TABLE V.42—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
TSL 6
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings (quads)
Quads ...............................................................................
0.57
1.58
2.66
3.52
9.70
9.76
73.5
661.6
0.6
146.7
19.0
0.1
188.6
1,646
1.7
364.1
53.3
0.4
189.6
1,654
1.7
366.0
53.6
0.4
77.4
10.8
20.8
108.9
46.2
31.2
62.8
77.8
10.9
20.9
109.5
47.3
30.5
62.2
35.2
10.8
8.7
54.7
26.2
9.0
28.5
35.4
10.9
8.7
55.0
26.8
8.6
28.2
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................
CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................
N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................
NOX (thousand tons) .......................................................
SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................
Hg (tons) ..........................................................................
12.4
114.8
0.1
25.4
3.0
0.02
34.1
311.4
0.3
69.0
8.4
0.1
57.1
527.6
0.5
116.5
13.9
0.1
Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$)
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................
Climate Benefits * .............................................................
Health Benefits ** .............................................................
Total Benefits † ................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ..........................
Consumer Net Benefits ....................................................
Total Net Benefits ............................................................
4.3
0.7
1.4
6.4
0.2
4.1
6.2
12.7
2.0
3.8
18.5
0.4
12.3
18.2
21.1
3.3
6.3
30.7
1.0
20.1
29.7
28.8
4.3
8.2
41.3
8.9
19.9
32.4
Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billions 2022$)
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................
Climate Benefits * .............................................................
Health Benefits ** .............................................................
Total Benefits † ................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ..........................
Consumer Net Benefits ....................................................
Total Net Benefits ............................................................
2.0
0.7
0.6
3.4
0.1
1.9
3.3
6.1
2.0
1.7
9.8
0.2
5.9
9.6
9.8
3.3
2.6
15.8
0.6
9.2
15.2
13.7
4.3
3.6
21.6
5.3
8.4
16.3
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 benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the
products shipped during the period 2027–2056 for all TSLs except for TSL 3 and 2057 from the products shipped during the period 2028–2057.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC–CO2, SC–CH4 and SC–N2O. 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 IWG.
** 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. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
† 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.
TABLE V.43—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS TSLS: MANUFACTURER AND
CONSUMER IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1 *
TSL 2 *
TSL 3 *
TSL 4 *
TSL 5 *
TSL 6 *
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Manufacturer Impacts
Industry NPV (million
2022$) (No-new-standards case INPV =
2,115.4).
Industry NPV (%
change).
2,080.3–
2,084.3.
(1.7)–(1.5) ..
2,061.1–2,069.5
1,971.2–1,995.8
1,501.9–1,724.8
679.9–1,800.8
604.3–1,753.5
(2.6)–(2.2)
(6.8)–(5.7)
(29.0)–(18.5)
(67.9)–(14.9)
(71.4)–(17.1)
131 The analysis period for TSL 3 (the
Recommended TSL) is 2028–2057.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
18233
TABLE V.43—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS TSLS: MANUFACTURER AND
CONSUMER IMPACTS—Continued
Category
TSL 1 *
TSL 2 *
TSL 3 *
TSL 4 *
TSL 5 *
TSL 6 *
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$)
Electric, Standard ...........
Electric, Compact (120
V).
Vented Electric, Compact (240 V).
Vented Gas, Standard ...
Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V).
Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer.
Shipment-Weighted Average *.
150 .............
53 ...............
170
83
252
66
101
66
41
66
41
(209)
38 ...............
89
90
90
22
(230)
48 ...............
0 .................
112
99
102
99
102
99
13
99
13
(102)
0 .................
10
11
10
10
(531)
131 .............
159
224
100
36
29
Consumer Simple PBP (years)
Electric, Standard ...........
Electric, Compact (120
V).
Vented Electric, Compact (240 V).
Vented Gas, Standard ...
Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V).
Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer.
Shipment-Weighted Average *.
0.5 ..............
1.5 ..............
0.5
1.5
0.6
2.2
2.1
2.2
5.8
2.2
5.8
18.1
2.1 ..............
1.5
2.0
2.0
6.6
20.4
2.5 ..............
0.0 ..............
1.3
0.4
1.9
0.4
1.9
0.4
5.0
0.4
5.0
11.4
0.0 ..............
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.3
0.9 ..............
0.6
0.8
2.1
5.6
6.1
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
Electric, Standard ...........
Electric, Compact (120
V).
Vented Electric, Compact (240 V).
Vented Gas, Standard ...
Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V).
Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer.
Shipment-Weighted Average *.
1.2 ..............
4.8 ..............
0.9
5.1
0.9
21.4
48.0
21.7
63.1
21.7
63.1
90.9
5.7 ..............
4.6
12.4
12.6
60.7
92.8
2.7 ..............
0.0 ..............
1.7
0.0
7.1
0.0
7.0
0.0
68.7
0.0
68.7
58.6
0.0 ..............
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
95.0
1.5 ..............
1.0
2.0
40.4
63.3
64.5
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
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 quads of energy,
an amount DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $8.6 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $30.5
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
billion using a discount rate of 3
percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 6 are 189.6 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 is $10.9 billion.
The estimated monetary value of the
health benefits from reduced SO2 and
NOX emissions at TSL 6 is $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
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 is $28.2 billion.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated total
NPV at TSL 6 is $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 LCC impact on
affected consumers is 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
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
18234
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
electric compact (240V), and ¥$531 for
ventless electric combination washerdryer. The simple PBP is 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 is 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 will experience a
net LCC cost, especially for senior
households. DOE estimated that more
72 percent of senior-only households
will experience a net LCC cost at TSL
6.
At TSL 6, the projected change in
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 maxtech 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 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 11percent drop in shipments in the year
the standard takes effect compared to
the no-new-standards case, as pricesensitive 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 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 senioronly 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, including lowincome and senior-only households,
would experience a net cost given the
current relatively high incremental cost
of certain consumer clothes dryers at the
max-tech efficiency level. This is
particularly pronounced for electric
standard clothes dryers, where the
incremental production cost at the maxtech 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) are more likely to
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
experience a net cost at TSL 6, given the
relatively modest decrease in operating
costs compared to the high incremental
installed costs as represented by the
weighted average LCC savings of $30.
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 concluded that TSL 6 is not
economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 5, which
represents the maximum energy savings
with maximum positive NPV. TSL 5
corresponds 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 are 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 is $10.8 billion.
The estimated monetary value of the
health benefits from reduced SO2 and
NOX emissions at TSL 5 is $ 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 is $28.5 billion.
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated total
NPV at TSL 5 is $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 is 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 is 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 washerdryer. The fraction of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost is 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
will experience a net LCC cost,
especially for senior-only households.
DOE estimated that more than 71
percent of senior-only households will
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 a 11percent drop in shipments in the year
the standard takes effect compared to
the no-new-standards case, as pricesensitive consumers may forgo
purchasing a new clothes dryer or rely
on alternatives such as repair or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
purchasing a used dryer due to the
increased upfront cost of baseline
models.
The Secretary 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 senioronly 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 lowincome 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 are 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 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 (2stage) 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 are 73.5 Mt of CO2, 19.0
thousand tons of SO2, 146.7 thousand
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18235
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 is $4.3 billion.
The estimated monetary value of the
health benefits from reduced SO2 and
NOX emissions at TSL 4 is $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 is $16.3 billion.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated total
NPV at TSL 4 is $32.4 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 4, the average LCC impact on
affected consumers is 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 is 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 0 years for ventless electric
combination washer-dryer. The fraction
of consumers experiencing a net LCC
cost is 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
will experience a net LCC cost,
especially for senior households. DOE
estimated that about 45 percent of
senior-only households will 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
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
18236
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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 (2stage) heating technology. Capital
conversion costs would be necessary as
manufacturers increase tooling for 2stage heating systems. Product
conversion costs would be necessary for
cost-optimizing and testing new designs
for a market with amended standards.
At this level, DOE does not expect a
notable drop in shipments in the year
the standard takes effect.
The Secretary 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 senioronly 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 are more likely to
experience a net cost at TSL 4, given the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 concluded that TSL 4 is
not economically justified.
DOE then considered the
Recommended TSL, which 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 (2stage) 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 are 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 is
$3.3 billion. The estimated monetary
value of the health benefits from
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL
3 is $2.6 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate and $6.3 billion using a 3percent 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 is
$15.2 billion. Using a 3-percent
discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at the
Recommended TSL is $29.7 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 the Recommended TSL, the
average LCC impact on affected
consumers is 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 is 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 0
years for ventless electric combination
washer-dryer. The fraction of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost is 1 percent
for electric standard, 21 percent for PC
2, 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 washerdryer. Overall, across the product
classes, approximately 2 percent of
consumers, including low-income and
senior-only households, will 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
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
(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 direct
final rule—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 multiproduct joint recommendation. A 2028
compliance year provides
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.132
Based on the information available, DOE
concludes that no lessening of product
utility or performance would occur at
the Recommended TSL.
After considering the analysis and
weighing the benefits and burdens, the
Secretary has concluded that a standard
132 This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE–2014–BT–
STD–0058–0058.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 are
positive. An estimated weighted average
of 2 percent of consumer clothes dryer
consumers would experience a net cost.
The FFC national energy savings are
significant and the NPV of consumer
benefits is positive using both a 3percent and 7-percent discount rate.
Notably, the benefits to consumers
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, is 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 7percent discount rate) in health
benefits—the rationale becomes stronger
still.
As stated, DOE conducts the walkdown 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 amended energy conservation
standards, DOE notes that as compared
to TSL 6, TSL 5, and TSL 4, the
Recommended TSL has 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
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18237
Secretary has 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
result in a large percentage of
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost,
in addition to significant manufacturer
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 concluded they are
economically justified, as discussed for
the Recommended TSL in the preceding
paragraphs.
Therefore, based on the previous
considerations, DOE adopts 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 above, DOE
notes that the Recommended TSL for
consumer clothes dryers adopted in this
direct final rule is part of a multiproduct Joint Agreement covering six
rulemakings (residential clothes
washers; consumer clothes dryers;
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18238
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
consumer conventional cooking
products; dishwashers; refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; and
miscellaneous refrigeration products).
The signatories indicated 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 this document,
many consumer clothes dryer OEMs
also manufacture residential clothes
dryers; 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),133 the negotiated multi-product
Joint Agreement staggers the compliance
dates for the five amended standards
over a 4-year period (2027–2030). In
response to the August 2022 NOPR,
AHAM expressed concerns about the
timing of ongoing home appliance
rulemakings. Specifically, AHAM
commented that there are a number of
ongoing regulations that impact
consumer clothes dryer manufacturers.
(AHAM, No. 46 at p. 13) AHAM has
submitted similar comments to other
ongoing home appliance
rulemakings.134 As AHAM is a key
signatory of the Joint Agreement, DOE
understands that the compliance dates
recommended in the Joint Agreement
would help reduce cumulative
regulatory burden. These compliance
dates help relieve concern on the part of
some manufacturers about their ability
to allocate sufficient resources to
comply with multiple concurrent
amended standards and about the need
to align compliance dates for products
that are typically designed or sold as
matched pairs. The Joint Agreement also
provides additional years of regulatory
certainty for manufacturers and their
suppliers.
For residential clothes washers and
consumer clothes dryers specifically,
aligned compliance dates would help
reduce cumulative regulatory burden for
the 13 OEMs that manufacture both
residential clothes washers and
consumer clothes dryers. In response to
the August 2022 NOPR, AHAM
commented that laundry products
(RCWs and consumer clothes dryers) are
designed and used in pairs. (AHAM, No.
46 at p. 10) AHAM stated that an
additional design cycle for clothes
washers and/or clothes dryers may be
necessary if the effective compliance
dates for the two products were out of
sync. AHAM further stated that
coordinated compliance dates would
greatly reduce burden on manufacturers
and retailers. (Id.)
The amended energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers,
which are expressed as CEFD2, are
shown in Table V.44.
TABLE V.44—AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER CLOTHES DRYERS
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
Product class
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ...............................................................................................................................
(ii) Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ....................................................................................................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ......................................................................................................
(iv) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer ..............................................................................................................................
(v) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) .......................................................................................................................
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ....................................................................................................
(vii) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) .......................................................................................................................
3.93
4.33
3.57
2.33
3.48
2.68
2.02
NEEA, the Joint Commenters, and
Samsung supported DOE’s proposed
TSL 3, which aligns with the
Recommended TSL in this direct final
rule, given the national energy savings,
life-cycle cost savings, and reasonable
manufacturer impacts. According to the
Joint Commenters, TSL 3 provides large
cost savings for all consumer groups,
including low-income households.
Samsung supported DOE’s proposed
TSL 3 and believes the test sample
adequately represents the current
marketplace. (NEEA, No. 45 at p. 2; Joint
Commenters, No. 51 at p. 2; Samsung,
No. 54 at p. 2)
NYSERDA also supported DOE’s
proposal in the August 2022 NOPR and
urged expedient adoption of the
amended standards given significant
LCC savings, reasonable payback
periods, significant GHG emissions
reductions, energy savings, and
monetary benefits for consumers in New
York and beyond, and the aging out of
a significant portion of the installed
dryer stock in New York. According to
the 2019 New York Residential Building
Stock Assessment, 49 percent of New
York consumer clothes dryers are over
10 years old, and another 81 percent are
5 years or older. NYSERDA stated that
based on DOE’s assumption of a product
lifetime average of 14 years, a significant
number of dryers in New York will be
due for replacement around the time of
the new standard, but only if DOE
finalizes this standard promptly.
(NYSERDA, No. 48 at pp. 1–2)
While the California IOUs supported
DOE’s conclusion that TSL 3
represented an economically justified
and technologically feasible efficiency
level achieving significant energy
savings, the California IOUs requested
that DOE clarify the supporting data that
led to the conclusion that TSL 4 was not
economically justified. The California
IOUs urged DOE to adopt TSL 3 at the
earliest opportunity so that consumers
may obtain the significant savings
provided from this level. (California
IOUs, No. 50 at pp. 1–2)
As previously stated, TSL 4 is not
economically justified. Nearly 50
percent of electric standard clothes
dryer users, including over 53 percent of
senior-only households, would
experience a net cost. This can be
133 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.
134 AHAM has submitted written comments
regarding cumulative regulatory burden for the
other five rulemakings included in the multiproduct Joint Agreement. AHAM’s written
comments on cumulative regulatory burden are
available at: www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE2017-BT-STD-0014-0464 (pp. 41–44) for residential
clothes washers; www.regulations.gov/comment/
EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2285 (pp. 44–47) for
consumer conventional cooking products;
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD0039-0051 (pp. 21-24) for dishwashers;
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD0003-0069 (pp. 20–22) for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers; and www.regulations.gov/
comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039-0031 (pp. 12–
15) for miscellaneous refrigeration products.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
attributed to the high incremental cost
of electric standard dryers with the inlet
air preheat technology efficiency level.
Moreover, the industry conversion costs
for implementing TSL 4 could amount
to $668 million, resulting in a
substantial decrease in the
manufacturer’s INPV. In addition, there
is very little industry experience with
inlet air preheat designs. Currently, DOE
is not aware of any consumer clothes
dryers on the market utilizing this
design option. DOE’s shipments
analysis estimates that approximately 7
percent of electric standard shipments
currently meet the efficiency required
by TSL 4. Implementing inlet air
preheat for electric standard dryers
would represent a major overhaul of
existing product lines and
manufacturing facilities.
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the
Adopted Standards
The benefits and costs of the adopted
standards can also be expressed in terms
of annualized values. The annualized
net benefit is (1) the annualized national
economic value (expressed in 2022$) of
the benefits from operating products
that meet the adopted 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.
Table V.45 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,
18239
the estimated cost of the adopted
standards for consumer clothes dryers is
$60.0 million per year in increased
equipment installed costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $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 amounts to $1,357
million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of
the adopted standards for consumer
clothes dryers is $57.2 million per year
in increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $1,177
million in reduced operating costs,
$185.5 million from GHG reductions,
and $349.4 million from reduced NOX
and SO2 emissions. In this case, the net
benefit amounts to $1,654 million per
year.
TABLE—V.45 ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER
CLOTHES DRYERS (THE RECOMMENDED TSL)
Million 2022$/year
Primary
Estimate
Low-netbenefits
estimate
High-netbenefits
estimate
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .............................................................................................
Climate Benefits* .........................................................................................................................
Health Benefits* * .........................................................................................................................
Total Benefits† .............................................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs‡ .......................................................................................
Net Benefits .................................................................................................................................
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV‡‡) .....................................................................................
1,177
185.5
349.4
1,712
57.2
1,654
(12)–(10)
1,103
178.9
337.2
1,619
58.9
1,560
(12)–(10)
1,230
187.8
353.7
1,771
54.4
1,717
(12)–(10)
971.4
185.5
259.9
1,417
60.0
1,357
(12)–(10)
915.5
178.9
251.5
1,346
61.2
1,285
(12)–(10)
1,014
187.8
262.8
1,464
57.7
1,407
(12)–(10)
7% discount rate
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .............................................................................................
Climate Benefits * .........................................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .........................................................................................................................
Total Benefits† .............................................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs‡ .......................................................................................
Net Benefits .................................................................................................................................
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV‡‡) .....................................................................................
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer clothes dryers shipped in 2028–2057. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028–2057. The Primary, Low-Net-Benefits, and High-Net-Benefits estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a constant rate in the Low-Net-Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High-Net-Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational
purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not
have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four
sets of SC–GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the
Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in
February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for 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 this document for more details.
† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE
does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18240
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See
sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE’s 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 this document and chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers’ pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion
costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule’s expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is
the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 7.5 percent that is estimated in
the manufacturer impact analysis (see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of
capital). For consumer clothes dryers, those values are ¥$12 million to ¥$10 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing
whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of
Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit 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 direct final rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption,
which is consistent with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this
direct final rule, the annualized net benefits, using the primary estimate, would range from $1,642 million to $,1644 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.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866, 13563 and 14094
Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as
supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O.
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan.
21, 2011) and amended by E.O. 14094,
‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review,’’ 88
FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law,
to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only
upon a reasoned determination that its
benefits justify its costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to
impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among
other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public. DOE emphasizes as
well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to
use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management
and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
that such techniques may include
identifying changing future compliance
costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. For the reasons
stated in the preamble, this final
regulatory action is consistent with
these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also
requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant
regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review.
OIRA has determined that this final
regulatory action constitutes a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within
the scope of section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
DOE has provided to OIRA an
assessment, including the underlying
analysis, of benefits and costs
anticipated from the final regulatory
action, together with, to the extent
feasible, a quantification of those costs;
and an assessment, including the
underlying analysis, of costs and
benefits of potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives to the
planned regulation, and an explanation
why the planned regulatory action is
preferable to the identified potential
alternatives. These assessments are
summarized in this preamble and
further detail can be found in the
technical support document for this
rulemaking.
B. 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 is not obligated to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for this
rulemaking because there is not a
requirement to publish a general notice
of proposed rulemaking under the
Administrative Procedure Act. See 5
U.S.C. 601(2), 603(a). As discussed
previously, DOE has determined that
the Joint Agreement meets the necessary
requirements under EPCA to issue this
direct final rule for energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers
under the procedures in 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4). DOE notes that the NOPR for
energy conservation standards for
consumer clothes dryers published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register contains a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
Manufacturers of consumer clothes
dryers must certify to DOE that their
products comply with any applicable
energy conservation standards. In
certifying compliance, manufacturers
must test their products according to the
DOE test procedures for consumer
clothes dryers, including any
amendments adopted for those test
procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and
recordkeeping requirements for all
covered consumer products and
commercial equipment, including
consumer clothes dryers. (See generally
10 CFR part 429.) The collection-ofinformation requirement for the
certification and recordkeeping is
subject to review and approval by OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(‘‘PRA’’). This requirement has been
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1910–1400. Public reporting
burden for the certification is estimated
to average 35 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(‘‘NEPA’’), DOE has analyzed this rule
in accordance with NEPA and DOE’s
NEPA implementing regulations (10
CFR part 1021). DOE has determined
that this rule qualifies for categorical
exclusion under 10 CFR part 1021,
subpart D, appendix B5.1 because it is
a rulemaking that establishes energy
conservation standards for consumer
products or industrial equipment, none
of the exceptions identified in B5.1(b)
apply, no extraordinary circumstances
exist that require further environmental
analysis, and it meets the requirements
for application of a categorical
exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410.
Therefore, DOE has determined that
promulgation of this rule is not a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment
within the meaning of NEPA, and does
not require an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact
statement.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR
43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain
requirements on Federal agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications. The
Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive order also requires agencies to
have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE has examined this rule and
has determined that it would not have
a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for
the products that are the subject of this
direct final rule. States can petition DOE
for exemption from such preemption to
the extent, and based on criteria, set
forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297)
Therefore, no further action is required
by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O.
12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes
on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements:
(1) eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
rather than a general standard, and (4)
promote simplification and burden
reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).
Regarding the review required by
section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988
specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to
ensure that the regulation (1) clearly
specifies the preemptive effect, if any,
(2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4)
specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5)
adequately defines key terms, and (6)
addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines
issued by the Attorney General. Section
3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of
applicable standards in section 3(a) and
section 3(b) to determine whether they
are met or it is unreasonable to meet one
or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to
the extent permitted by law, this direct
final rule meets the relevant standards
of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18241
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
regulatory action likely to result in a
rule that may cause the expenditure by
State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section
202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency
to publish a written statement that
estimates the resulting costs, benefits,
and other effects on the national
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The
UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit
timely input by elected officers of State,
local, and Tribal governments on a
‘‘significant intergovernmental
mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for
timely input to potentially affected
small governments before establishing
any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On
March 18, 1997, DOE published a
statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy
statement is also available at
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/
documents/umra_97.pdf.
DOE has concluded that this direct
final rule may require expenditures of
$100 million or more in any one year by
the private sector. Such expenditures
may include (1) investment in research
and development and in capital
expenditures by consumer clothes dryer
manufacturers in the years between the
direct final rule and the compliance
date for the new standards and (2)
incremental additional expenditures by
consumers to purchase higher efficiency
consumer clothes dryers starting at the
compliance date for the applicable
standard.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a
Federal agency to respond to the content
requirements of UMRA in any other
statement or analysis that accompanies
the direct final rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c))
The content requirements of section
202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private
sector mandate substantially overlap the
economic analysis requirements that
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and
Executive Order 12866. This
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section and
the TSD for this direct final rule
respond to those requirements.
Under section 205 of UMRA, the
Department is obligated to identify and
consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a written
statement under section 202 is required.
(2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to
select from those alternatives the most
cost-effective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
18242
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
of the rule unless DOE publishes an
explanation for doing otherwise, or the
selection of such an alternative is
inconsistent with law. As required by 42
U.S.C. 6295(m), this direct final rule
establishes amended energy
conservation standards for consumer
clothes dryers that are designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that DOE has
determined to be both technologically
feasible and economically justified, as
required by 6295(o)(2)(A) and
6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the
alternatives considered by DOE is
presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for
this direct final rule.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being.
Although this direct final rule would
not have any impact on the autonomy
or integrity of the family as an
institution as defined, this rule could
impact a family’s well-being. When
developing a Family Policymaking
Assessment, agencies must assess
whether: (1) the action strengthens or
erodes the stability or safety of the
family and, particularly, the marital
commitment; (2) the action strengthens
or erodes the authority and rights of
parents in the education, nurture, and
supervision of their children; (3) the
action helps the family perform its
functions, or substitutes governmental
activity for the function; (4) the action
increases or decreases disposable
income or poverty of families and
children; (5) the proposed benefits of
the action justify the financial impact on
the family; (6) the action may be carried
out by State or local government or by
the family; and whether (7) the action
establishes an implicit or explicit policy
concerning the relationship between the
behavior and personal responsibility of
youth, and the norms of society.
DOE has considered how the
proposed benefits of this rule compare
to the possible financial impact on a
family (the only factor listed that is
relevant to this final rule). As part of its
rulemaking process, DOE must
determine whether the energy
conservation standards contained in this
direct final rule are economically
justified. As discussed in section V.C.1
of this document, DOE has determined
that the standards are economically
justified because the benefits to
consumers far outweigh the costs to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
manufacturers. Families will also see
LCC savings as a result of this final rule.
Moreover, as discussed further in
section IV.I of this document, DOE’s
analysis estimated that 45 percent of
low-income households who have a
consumer clothes dryer would
experience a net benefit and 54 percent
of low-income households who have a
consumer clothes dryer would have no
impact under the adopted standards.
Further, the standards will also result in
climate and health benefits for families.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988),
DOE has determined that this rule
would not result in any takings that
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note)
provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to
the public under information quality
guidelines established by each agency
pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published
at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE’s guidelines were published at 67
FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to
OMB Memorandum M–19–15,
Improving Implementation of the
Information Quality Act (April 24,
2019), DOE published updated
guidelines which are available at
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/
12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated
%20IQA%20Guidelines
%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this direct final rule under the
OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires
Federal agencies to prepare and submit
to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy
Effects for any significant energy action.
A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined
as any action by an agency that
promulgates or is expected to lead to
promulgation of a final rule, and that (1)
is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor
order; and (2) is likely to have a
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is
designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any significant energy action, the agency
must give a detailed statement of any
adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use should the proposal
be implemented, and of reasonable
alternatives to the action and their
expected benefits on energy supply,
distribution, and use.
DOE has concluded that this
regulatory action, which sets forth
amended energy conservation standards
for consumer clothes dryers, is not a
significant energy action because the
standards are not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it
been designated as such by the
Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a Statement of
Energy Effects on this direct final rule.
L. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’),
issued its Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the
Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005).
The Bulletin establishes that certain
scientific information shall be peer
reviewed by qualified specialists before
it is disseminated by the Federal
Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency
regulatory actions. The purpose of the
Bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. Under the
Bulletin, the energy conservation
standards rulemaking analyses are
‘‘influential scientific information,’’
which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific
information the agency reasonably can
determine will have, or does have, a
clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private
sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE
conducted formal peer reviews of the
energy conservation standards
development process and the analyses
that are typically used and prepared a
report describing that peer review.135
Generation of this report involved a
rigorous, formal, and documented
evaluation using objective criteria and
qualified and independent reviewers to
make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or
anticipated results, and the productivity
135 The 2007 Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Peer Review Report is available at
energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0 (last accessed November 2021).
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
and management effectiveness of
programs and/or projects. Because
available data, models, and
technological understanding have
changed since 2007, DOE has engaged
with the National Academy of Sciences
to review DOE’s analytical
methodologies to ascertain whether
modifications are needed to improve
DOE’s analyses. DOE is in the process
of evaluating the resulting report.136
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of this rule prior to its effective date.
The report will state that the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
determined that this action meets the
criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VII. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this direct final rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, 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.
18243
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
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.
2. Amend § 430.32 by adding
paragraph (h)(4) to read as follows:
■
§ 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:
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, DOE amends part 430 of
CEFD2
(lb/kWh)
Product class
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) * ...........................................................................................................................
(ii) Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ..................................................................................................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ....................................................................................................
(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) ** .................................................................................................................
(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ......................................................................................................................
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) ..................................................................................................
(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer ...........................................................................................................................
3.93
4.33
3.57
3.48
2.02
2.68
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. 2024–04765 Filed 3–11–24; 8:45 am]
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
136 The report is available at
www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Mar 11, 2024
Jkt 262001
methods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\12MRR4.SGM
12MRR4
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18164-18243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04765]
[[Page 18163]]
Vol. 89
Tuesday,
No. 49
March 12, 2024
Part IV
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer
Clothes Dryers; Final Rule and Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 18164]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058]
RIN 1904-AF59
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Clothes Dryers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including consumer
clothes dryers. In this direct final rule, DOE is adopting amended
energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers. DOE has
determined that the amended energy conservation standards for these
products would result in significant conservation of energy and are
technologically feasible and economically justified.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is July 10, 2024. If adverse
comments are received by July 1, 2024 and DOE determines that such
comments may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct
final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), a timely withdrawal of this rule
will be published in the Federal Register. If no such adverse comments
are received, compliance with the amended standards established for
consumer clothes dryers in this direct final rule is required on and
after March 1, 2028. Comments regarding the likely competitive impact
of the standards contained in this direct final rule should be sent to
the Department of Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or
before April 11, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input
from market participants and other interested persons with views on the
likely competitive impact of the standards contained in this direct
final rule. Interested persons may contact the Antitrust Division at
[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 direct final rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-5649. Email: [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].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. Current Test Procedure
3. The Joint Agreement
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage
B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points of View
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
2. Technology Options
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened Out Technologies
a. Thermoelectric Heating, Electric Only
b. Microwave, Electric Only
c. Indirect Heating
d. RF Drying, Electric Only
e. Ultrasonic Drying, Electric Only
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
b. Incremental Efficiency Levels
2. Cost Analysis
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
3. Discussion of MIA Comments
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
c. Sensitivity Analysis Using Updated 2023 SC-GHG Estimates
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
O. Regulatory Impact Analysis
P. Other Comments
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
[[Page 18165]]
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer Clothes
Dryer Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include consumer clothes dryers, the
subject of this direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must, among other things, be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule amending energy
conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers.
The adopted standard levels in this direct final rule were proposed
in a letter submitted to DOE jointly by groups representing
manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and
a utility. This letter, titled ``Energy Efficiency Agreement of 2023''
(hereafter, the ``Joint Agreement'',) \3\ recommends specific energy
conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers that, in the
commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o). DOE subsequently received letters of support from States--
including New York, California, and Massachusetts \4\--and utilities--
including San Diego Gas and Electric (``SDG&E'') and Southern
California Edison (``SCE'') \5\--advocating for the adoption of the
recommended standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0055.
\4\ Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0056.
\5\ Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the direct final rule provisions at 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4), DOE has determined that the recommendations contained in
the Joint Agreement are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). As required
by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is also simultaneously publishing
elsewhere in this Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR'') that contains standards identical to those adopted in this
direct final rule. Consistent with the statute, DOE is providing a 110-
day public comment period on the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines that any comments received provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42
U.S.C. 6295(o) or any other applicable law, DOE will publish the
reasons for withdrawal and continue the rulemaking under the NOPR. (42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) See section II.A of this document for more
details on DOE's statutory authority.
The amended standards that DOE is adopting in this direct final
rule are the efficiency levels recommended in the Joint Agreement
(shown in Table I.1). The standards are expressed in terms of the
combined energy factor (``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. The amended standards recommended in the Joint
Agreement are represented as trial standard level (``TSL'') 3
(hereinafter the ``Recommended TSL'') and are described in section V.A
of this document. The Joint Agreement's standards for consumer clothes
dryers apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in,
or imported into, the United States starting on March 1, 2028.
[[Page 18166]]
Table I.1--Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers
[Compliance starting March 1, 2028]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum_CEFD2 (lb/
Product class 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
Table I.2 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of
the adopted standards on consumers of consumer clothes dryers, as
measured by the average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the
simple payback period (``PBP'').\6\ The average LCC savings are
positive for all product classes, and the PBP is less than the average
lifetime of consumer clothes dryers, which is estimated to be 14 years
(see section IV.F of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards
(see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative
to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document).
Table I.2--Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers
of Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Simple payback
Consumer clothes dryer class savings (2022$) period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ or $252 0.6
greater capacity)..................
Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 66 2.2
4.4 ft\3\ capacity)................
Vented Electric, Compact (240V) 90 2.0
(less than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).....
Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ or 102 1.9
greater capacity)..................
Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) 99 0.4
(less than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).....
Ventless Electric, Combination 11 0.0
Washer-Dryer.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on consumers
is described in section IV.F of this document.
B. Impact on Manufacturers
The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year (2024) through
the end of the analysis period, which is 30 years from the analyzed
compliance date.\7\ Using a real discount rate of 7.5 percent, DOE
estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers in
the case without amended standards is $2.12 billion in 2022$.\8\ Under
the adopted standards, which align with the Recommended TSL for
consumer clothes dryers, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from
-6.8 percent to -5.7 percent, which is a decrease of approximately
$144.2 million to a decrease of approximately $119.7 million. In order
to bring products into compliance with amended standards, it is
estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $180.7
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ DOE's analysis period extends 30 years from the compliance
year. The analysis period for the MIA ranges from 2024-2056 for the
no-new-standards case and all TSLs, except for TSL 3 (the
Recommended TSL). The analysis period for the Recommended TSL ranges
from 2024-2057 due to the 2028 compliance year.
\8\ The no-new-standards case INPV of $2.12 billion reflects the
sum of discounted free cash flows from 2024-2056 (from the reference
year to 30 years after the 2027 compliance date) plus a discounted
terminal value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on
manufacturers is described in section IV.J and section V.B.2 of this
document.
C. National Benefits and Costs 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022
dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2024 unless
explicitly stated otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers would save a significant amount
of energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime
energy savings for consumer clothes dryers purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the
amended standards (2028-2057), amount to 2.7 quadrillion British
thermal units (``Btu''), or quads.\10\ This represents a savings of 11
percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case
without amended standards (referred to as the ``no-new-standards
case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the standards for consumer clothes dryers ranges from $
9.23 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $20.08 billion (at a 3-
percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of
future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product and
installation costs for consumer clothes dryers purchased during the
period 2028-2057.
In addition, the adopted standards for consumer clothes dryers are
projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates
that the standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over
the same period as for
[[Page 18167]]
energy savings) of 57.1 million metric tons (``Mt'') \11\ of carbon
dioxide (``CO2''), 13.9 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide
(``SO2''), 116.5 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(``NOX''), 527.6 thousand tons of methane
(``CH4''), 0.5 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N2O''), and 0.1 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\12\ The
estimated cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions through 2030
amounts to 1.3 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from
the annual electricity use of more than 260 thousand homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
\12\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023''). AEO2023 represents current Federal and
State legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the
time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for
further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that affect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO2 (``SC-CO2''), the social cost of
methane (``SC-CH4''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SC-N2O''). Together these represent the social cost of
GHG (``SC-GHG''). DOE used interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit
per ton of GHG avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (``IWG'').\13\ The derivation of
these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For
presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $3.3
billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and
it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February
2021 by the IWG. (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO2 and
NOX emissions reductions, using benefit-per-ton estimates
from the Environmental Protection Agency,\14\ as discussed in section
IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health
benefits would be $2.6 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and
$6.3 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\15\ DOE is currently only
monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) concentrations from two precursors
(SO2 and NOX), and from changes in ambient ozone
from one precursor (for NOX), but will continue to assess
the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from
reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing
Directly Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors and
Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.
\15\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered trial standard levels
(``TSLs'') for the purpose of complying with the requirements of
Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I.3 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to
result from the amended standards for consumer clothes dryers. There
are other important unquantified effects, including certain
unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from
the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified
energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.
Table I.3--Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings....................... 21.1
Climate Benefits *.................................... 3.3
Health Benefits **.................................... 6.3
Total Benefits [dagger]............................... 30.7
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]........... 1.0
Net Monetized Benefits................................ 20.1
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger]).. (0.14)-(0.12)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings....................... 9.8
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................. 3.3
Health Benefits **.................................... 2.6
Total Benefits [dagger]............................... 15.8
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]........... 0.6
Net Monetized Benefits................................ 9.2
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger]).. (0.14)-(0.12)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with
consumer clothes dryers shipped in 2028-2057. These results include
consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the
products shipped in 2028-2057.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational
purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE
emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the
benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim
estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive
Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for 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 this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation
purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with a 3-percent discount
rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
installation costs.
[[Page 18168]]
[Dagger][Dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life
cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in
detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's
national impact analysis includes all impacts (both costs and
benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased
costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with
the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately
conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the
MIA). See section IV.J of this document and chapter 12 of the direct
final rule technical support document (``TSD''). In the detailed MIA,
DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions
regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The
MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact
on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in
industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital
expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is
calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value
of 7.5 percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the
direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry
weighted average cost of capital). For consumer clothes dryers, those
values are -$144 million to -$120 million. DOE accounts for that range
of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically
justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the
range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios:
the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer
markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost
Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit
scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to
increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in
manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated
change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained
further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional
context for assessing the estimated impacts of this direct final rule
to society, including potential changes in production and consumption,
which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE
were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this
direct final rule, the net benefits would range from $19.96 billion to
$19.98 billion at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $9.06
billion to $9.08 billion at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( )
indicate negative values.
The benefits and costs of the adopted standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits
of emission reductions, all annualized.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from
each year to 2024. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the
compliance year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S.
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the
covered products and are measured for the lifetime of consumer clothes
dryers shipped in 2028-2057. The benefits associated with reduced
emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also
calculated based on the lifetime of consumer clothes dryers shipped in
2028-2057. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases
are presented using the average GHG social costs with a 3-percent
discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four
SC-GHG discount rates in section IV.L of this document.
Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the adopted standards, expressed in terms of annualized
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted
in this rule is $60.0 million per year in increased equipment costs,
while the estimated annual benefits are $971.4 million in reduced
equipment operating costs, $185.5 million in climate benefits, and
$259.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would
amount to $1,357 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the standards is $57.2 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,177 million
in reduced operating costs, $185.5 million in climate benefits, and
$349.4 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would
amount to $1,654 million per year.
Table I.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers (2028-2057)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million/year (2022$)
-----------------------------------------------------
High-net-
Primary estimate Low-net-benefits benefits
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........................ 57.2 58.9 54.4
Net Benefits.............................................. 1,654 1,560 1,717
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])...... (12)-(10) (12)-(10) (12)-(10)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................... 971.4 915.5 1,014
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)..................... 185.5 178.9 187.8
Health Benefits **........................................ 259.9 251.5 262.8
Total Benefits [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
[[Page 18169]]
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])...... (12)-(10) (12)-(10) (12)-(10)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer clothes dryers shipped in 2028-2057.
These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028-2057.
The Primary, Low-Net-Benefits, and High-Net-Benefits estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the
AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition,
incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a constant rate in the Low-
Net-Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High-Net-Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive
projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits
and Costs may not sum up to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it
emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG
estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates
presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim
Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for 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 this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with a
3-percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[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 as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's national
impact analysis includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the
increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price
experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers
(the MIA). See section IV.J of this document and chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. In the detailed MIA,
DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs,
cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV.
The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production
costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated
using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 7.5 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer
impact analysis (see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry
weighted average cost of capital). For consumer clothes dryers, those values are -$12 million to -$10 million.
DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See
section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup
scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the
calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup
scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in
proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized
change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in chapter 12 of this direct final
rule TSD, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this direct final rule to
society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-
4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this direct
final rule, the annualized net benefits, using the primary estimate, would range from $1,642 million to $1,644
at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $1,345 million to $1,347 million at 7-percent discount rate.
Parentheses ( ) indicate negative values.
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.
D. Conclusion
DOE has determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted jointly
by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points
of view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). After considering
the recommended standards and weighing the benefits and burdens, DOE
has determined that the recommended standards are in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards. Specifically, the Secretary of Energy
(``Secretary'') has determined that the adoption of the recommended
standards would result in the significant conservation of energy and is
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. In determining whether the
recommended standards are economically justified, the Secretary has
determined that the benefits of the recommended standards exceed the
burdens. The Secretary has further concluded that the recommended
standards, when considering the benefits of energy savings, positive
NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary
value of the emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings,
would yield benefits that outweigh the negative impacts on some
consumers and on manufacturers, including the conversion costs that
could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
standards for consumer clothes dryers is $60.0 million per year in
increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $971.4
million in reduced product operating costs, $185.5 million in climate
benefits, and $259.9 million in health benefits. The net benefit
amounts to $1,357 million per year. DOE notes that the net benefits are
substantial even in the absence of the climate benefits,\17\ and DOE
would adopt the same standards in the absence of such benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The information on climate benefits is provided in
compliance with Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\18\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand.
[[Page 18170]]
The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more
pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly,
DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings of 2.7 quads FFC, the equivalent of
the primary annual energy use of 18 million homes. In addition, they
are projected to reduce cumulative CO2 emissions by 57.1 Mt.
Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from the
standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are ``significant''
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed
discussion of the basis for these conclusions is contained in the
remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD.
Under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is
issuing this direct final rule amending the energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers. Consistent with this authority,
DOE is also simultaneously publishing elsewhere in this Federal
Register a NOPR proposing standards that are identical to those
contained in this direct final rule. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i).
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this direct final rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
consumer clothes dryers.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include consumer
clothes dryers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(8))
EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42
U.S.C. 6295(g)(3)), and directed DOE to conduct future rulemakings to
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)) EPCA
further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any
final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either
a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to
be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use
these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test
procedures for consumer clothes dryers appear at title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix D1
(``appendix D1'') and appendix D2 (``appendix D2'').
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including consumer clothes
dryers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any
standard that would not result in the significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by
rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a proposed
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the
proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent
practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of evidence that the standard is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States in
[[Page 18171]]
any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United
States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy
conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a
type (or class) of product must specify a different standard level for
a type or class of products that has the same function or intended use
if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products
within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
DOE consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(2))
Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, final rules for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, are required to address standby mode
and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for consumer clothes
dryers address standby mode and off mode energy use, as do the amended
standards adopted in this direct final rule.
Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE
authority to directly issue a final rule (i.e., a ``direct final
rule'') establishing an energy conservation standard upon receipt of a
statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates),
as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with
respect to an energy or water conservation standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also
determine whether a jointly submitted recommendation for an energy or
water conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.
The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a NOPR
that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is
identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE
must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this
proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) While DOE typically provides a
comment period of 60 days on proposed standards, for a NOPR
accompanying a direct final rule, DOE provides a comment period of the
same length as the comment period on the direct final rule--i.e., 110
days. Based on the comments received during this period, the direct
final rule will either become effective, or DOE will withdraw it not
later than 120 days after its issuance if: (1) one or more adverse
comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those comments, when
viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the direct final
rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final
rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an
alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the same manner. (Id.)
DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final
rule authority. In a final rule amending the Department's ``Procedures,
Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products'' at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A (``Process Rule'' or ``appendix A''), DOE noted
that it may issue standards recommended by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relative points of view as a direct final rule
when the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)
or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13,
2021). But the direct final rule provision in EPCA does not impose
additional requirements applicable to other standards rulemakings,
which is consistent with the unique circumstances of rules issued
through consensus agreements under DOE's direct final rule authority.
Id. DOE's discretion remains bounded by its statutory mandate to adopt
a standard that results in the maximum improvement in energy efficiency
that is technologically feasible and economically justified--a
requirement found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Id. As such, DOE's review and
analysis of the Joint Agreement is limited to whether the recommended
standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a direct final rule published on April 21, 2011, (``April 2011
Direct Final Rule'') DOE prescribed the current energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers manufactured on and after January
1, 2015. 76 FR 22454.\19\ These standards are set forth in DOE's
regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(h)(3) and are shown in Table II.1. These
standards are consistent with a prior joint proposal submitted to DOE
by interested parties representing manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, and consumer groups.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ DOE published a confirmation of effective date and
compliance date for the direct final rule on August 24, 2011. 76 FR
52854.
\20\ Available at: www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current standards are defined in terms of a minimum allowable
CEF, as measured according to appendix D1. Even though DOE maintained
the same energy efficiency descriptor for both appendix D1 and appendix
D2, DOE notes that the CEF values are not equivalent because of the
extensive differences in test methods.\21\ To avoid potential confusion
that would result from using the same efficiency descriptor for both
test procedures as it relates to the standards discussed in this
document, DOE is including a ``D1'' or ``D2'' subscript when referring
to the appendix D1 CEF and appendix D2 CEF, respectively
(``CEFD1'' and ``CEFD2'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ While the current standards are based on CEF as determined
in accordance with appendix D1, manufacturers are permitted to use
the appendix D2 test procedure to comply with the current standards,
as long as they use a single appendix for all representations.
Beginning on the compliance date of the amended standards
established by this direct final rule, manufacturers will be
required to use appendix D2 to comply with the amended standards.
[[Page 18172]]
Table II.1--Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Clothes
Dryers as Measured Under Appendix D1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEFD1 (lb/
Product class kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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 measures
the effects of automatic cycle termination.
EPCA authorizes DOE to design test procedures that measure energy
efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated annual operating cost
of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or
period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The appendix D2 test procedure,
which is required for use to demonstrate compliance with the amended
energy conservation standards established in this direct final rule,
measures the energy consumption of a representative use cycle that
dries a load of laundry from an initial moisture content of 57.5
percent to an FMC of less than 2 percent. 86 FR 56624-56625. For timer
clothes dryers, the test load is dried until the FMC is between 1 and
2.5 percent of the bone-dry weight of the test load. The measured
energy consumption is then normalized to determine the energy
consumption required to dry the test load to 2-percent FMC, with a
field use factor applied to account for the over-drying energy
consumption. For automatic termination control clothes dryers, appendix
D2 specifies that a ``normal'' program be selected for the test cycle,
and for clothes dryers that do not have a ``normal'' program, the cycle
recommended by the manufacturer for drying cotton or linen shall be
selected. If the drying temperature and drying level settings can be
chosen independently of the program, they shall be set at the maximum
drying temperature setting, and at a ``normal'' or ``medium'' dryness
level setting. The test is considered valid if the FMC of the test load
is 2 percent or less after the completion of the test cycle. If the FMC
is greater than 2 percent, the test is considered invalid and a new run
shall be conducted using the highest dryness level setting.
The current 2-percent FMC requirement using the DOE test cloth was
adopted as representative of approximately 5-percent FMC for ``real-
world'' clothing, based on data submitted in a joint petition for
rulemaking.\22\ DOE determined in the final rule published on August
14, 2013, that established the appendix D2 Test procedure that the
specified 2-percent FMC using the DOE test load was representative of
consumer expectations for dryness of clothing in field use. 78 FR
49608, 49620-49622, 49610-49611. DOE did not amend the FMC requirements
in the October 2021 TP Final Rule. 86 FR 56626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The petition was submitted by AHAM, Whirlpool Corporation,
General Electric Company, Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc., BSH,
Alliance Laundry Systems, Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/
C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA
Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik,
Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and
DeLonghi, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Alliance to Save Energy, Alliance for Water Efficiency,
Northwest Power and Conservation Council, and Northeast Energy
Efficiency Partnerships, Consumer Federation of America and the
National Consumer Law Center. See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0054,
No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has conducted the rulemaking analysis for this direct final
rule based on CEFD2 because compliance with the amended
energy conservation standards established in this direct final rule
must be determined based on the use of appendix D2. DOE discusses
additional details in section IV.C.1 of this document about how it
developed the engineering baseline, in terms of 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 of
recommended standards (i.e., the Joint Agreement) for various home
appliance products, including consumer clothes dryers, submitted
jointly by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental
advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.\23\ In addition to the
[[Page 18173]]
recommended standards for consumer clothes dryers, the Joint Agreement
also included separate recommendations for several other covered
products.\24\ And, while acknowledging that DOE may implement these
recommendations in separate rulemakings, the Joint Agreement also
stated that the recommendations were recommended as a complete package
and each recommendation is contingent upon the other parts being
implemented. DOE understands this to mean that the Joint Agreement is
contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes to adopt all of the
recommended standards in the agreement. That is distinguished from an
agreement where issuance of an amended energy conservation standard for
a covered product is contingent on issuance of amended energy
conservation standards for the other covered products. If the Joint
Agreement were so construed, it would conflict with the anti-
backsliding provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), because it would imply
the possibility that, if DOE were unable to issue an amended standard
for a certain product, it would have to withdraw a previously issued
standard for one of the other products. The anti-backsliding provision,
however, prevents DOE from withdrawing or amending an energy
conservation standard to be less stringent. As a result, DOE will be
proceeding with individual rulemakings that will evaluate each of the
recommended standards separately under the applicable statutory
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include AHAM,
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water
Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer
Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that make the affected
products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB;
Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances
Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,;
Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier
Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr
USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances
Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of America; Perlick
Corporation; Samsung Electronics America Inc; Sharp Electronics
Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby
Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool
Corporation.
\24\ The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for 6 covered
products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers;
clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; cooking products; and
miscellaneous refrigeration products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A court decision issued after DOE received the Joint Agreement is
also relevant to this rule. On March 17, 2022, various States filed a
petition seeking review of a final rule revoking two final rules that
established product classes for residential dishwashers with a cycle
time for the normal cycle of 60 minutes or less, top-loading
residential clothes washers (``RCWs'') and certain classes of consumer
clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, and front-
loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes (collectively,
``short cycle product classes''). The petitioners argued that the final
rule revoking the short cycle product classes violated EPCA and was
arbitrary and capricious. On January 8, 2024, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review and
remanded the matter to DOE for further proceedings consistent with the
Fifth Circuit's opinion. See Louisiana v. United States Department of
Energy, 90 F.4th 461 (5th Cir. 2024). On February 14, 2024, following
the Fifth Circuit's decision in Louisiana v. United States Department
of Energy, DOE received a second joint statement from this same group
of stakeholders in which the signatories reaffirmed the Joint
Agreement, stating that the recommended standards represent the maximum
levels of efficiency that are technologically feasible and economically
justified.\25\ In the letter, the signatories clarified that ``short-
cycle'' product classes for RCWs, clothes dryers, and dishwashers did
not exist at the time that the signatories submitted their
recommendations and it is their understanding that these classes also
do not exist at the current time. Accordingly, the parties clarified
that the Joint Agreement did not address short-cycle product classes.
The signatories also stated that they did not anticipate that the
recommended energy conservation standards in the Joint Agreement will
negatively affect features or performance, including cycle time, for
consumer clothes dryers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Agreement recommends amended standard levels for consumer
clothes dryers as presented in Table II.2. (Joint Agreement, No. 55 at
p. 9) \26\ Details of the Joint Agreement recommendations for other
products are provided in the Joint Agreement posted in the docket.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers. (Docket
No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged as follows:
(commenter name, comment docket ID number at page of that document).
\27\ The Joint Agreement available in the docket at
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0055.
Table II.2--Recommended Amended Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
energy
Product class efficiency Compliance date
ratio (lb/
kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic 3.93 March 1, 2028
feet (``ft\3\'') or greater
capacity).
Electric, Compact (120 volts 4.33
(``V'')) (less than 4.4 ft\3\
capacity).
Vented Electric, Compact (240V) 3.57
(less than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft\3\ 3.48
or greater capacity).
Vented Gas, Compact (less than 2.02
4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) 2.68
(less than 4.4 ft\3\ capacity).
Ventless Electric, Combination 2.33
Washer-Dryer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Joint Agreement was submitted, DOE was conducting a
rulemaking to consider amending the standards for consumer clothes
dryers. As part of that process, DOE published a NOPR and announced a
public meeting on August 23, 2022 (``August 2022 NOPR'') seeking
comment on its proposed amended standard to inform its decision
consistent with its obligations under EPCA and the Administrative
Procedure Act (``APA''). 87 FR 51734. DOE subsequently held a public
webinar on September 13, 2022, to discuss and receive comments on the
NOPR TSD.
Although DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement as a direct final rule
and no
[[Page 18174]]
longer proceeding with its prior rulemaking, DOE did consider relevant
comments, data, and information obtained during that rulemaking process
in determining whether the recommended standards from the Joint
Agreement are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Any discussion of
comments, data, or information in this direct final rule that were
obtained during DOE's prior rulemaking will include a parenthetical
reference that provides the location of the item in the public
record.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers. (Docket
No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged as follows:
(commenter name, comment docket ID number at page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. General Discussion
DOE is issuing this direct final rule after determining that the
recommended standards submitted in the Joint Agreement meet the
requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). More specifically, DOE has
determined that the recommended standards were submitted by interested
persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view and
the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
On March 17, 2022, various states filed a petition seeking review
of a final rule revoking two final rules that established product
classes for residential dishwashers with a cycle time for the normal
cycle of 60 minutes or less, top-loading RCWs and certain classes of
consumer clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, and
front-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes
(collectively, ``short cycle product classes''). The petitioners argued
that the final rule revoking the short cycle product classes violated
EPCA and was arbitrary and capricious. On January 8, 2024, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the petition for
review and remanded the matter to DOE for further proceedings
consistent with the Fifth Circuit's opinion. See Louisiana v. United
States Department of Energy, 90 F.4th 461 (5th Cir. 2024)
Following the Fifth Circuit's decision, the signatories to the
Joint Agreement submitted a second letter to DOE, which stated that
Joint Recommendation did not ``address'' ``short-cycle product
classes.'' \29\ That is because, as the letter explained, such product
classes ``did not exist'' at the time of the Joint Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a recently issued Request for Information,\30\ DOE is commencing
a rulemaking process on remand from the Fifth Circuit (the Remand
Proceeding) by soliciting further information, relevant to the issues
identified by the Fifth Circuit, regarding any short cycle product
classes. In that Remand Proceeding, DOE will conduct the analysis
required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B) to determine whether any short-
cycle products have a ``capacity or other performance-related feature
[that] . . . justifies a higher or lower standard from that which
applies (or will apply) to other products. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current standards applicable to any products within the scope
of that proceeding remain unchanged by this rule. See 10 CFR 430.32(g).
Consistent with the Joint Parties' letter, short-cycle products are not
subject to the amended standards adopted by this direct final rule. If
the short-cycle products that DOE will consider in the Remand
Proceeding were subject to these standards, that would have the
practical effect of limiting the options available in the Remand
Proceeding. That is because EPCA's anti-backsliding provision precludes
DOE from prescribing any amended standard ``which increases the maximum
allowable energy use'' of a covered product. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1).
Accordingly, were the products at issue in the Remand Proceeding also
subject to the amended standards adopted here, the Department could
only reaffirm the standards adopted in this direct final rule or adopt
more stringent standards.
The Joint Agreement specifies the product classes for consumer
clothes dryers: electric, standard; electric, compact; vented electric,
compact; vented gas, standard; vented gas, compact; ventless electric,
compact; and ventless electric, combination washer-dryer. Although
these product classes were not further divided by cycle time, DOE
understands them to exclude vented electric standard-size clothes
dryers and vented gas standard-size clothes dryers with a cycle time of
less than 30 minutes, when tested according to appendix D2. As
previously noted, any such ``short-cycle'' consumer clothes dryers will
be considered in the Remand Proceeding; the current standards
applicable to such ``short-cycle'' consumer clothes dryers are
unchanged by this rule.
Under the direct final rule authority at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE
evaluates whether recommended standards are in accordance with criteria
contained in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE does not have the authority to
revise recommended standards submitted under the direct final rule
provision in EPCA. Therefore, DOE did not analyze any additional
product classes beyond those product classes included in the Joint
Agreement. That is, DOE has not separately considered or established
amended standards applicable to any short-cycle product classes. In the
event that DOE establishes short-cycle product classes, pursuant to the
rulemaking on remand from the Fifth Circuit, DOE will necessarily
consider what amended standards ought to apply to any such product
classes and will do so in conformance with EPCA.
DOE notes that the data and analysis used to support this direct
final rule includes information for vented electric standard-size
clothes dryers and vented gas standard-size clothes dryers that is not
distinguished by cycle time and is representative of all consumer
clothes dryers currently on the market today. To the extent that any
short cycle product classes were included in this data and analysis,
DOE believes the amount of such data is negligible.
A. Scope of Coverage
Before discussing how the Joint Agreement meets the requirements
for issuing a direct final rule, it is important to clarify the scope
of coverage for the recommended standards. EPCA does not define the
term ``clothes dryer.'' (See 42 U.S.C. 6291) DOE has defined an
``electric clothes dryer'' as a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry
fabrics in a tumble-type drum with forced air circulation. The heat
source is electricity and the drum and blower(s) are driven by an
electric motor(s). 10 CFR 430.2. DOE has defined a ``gas clothes
dryer'' as a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry fabrics in a
tumble-type drum with forced air circulation. The heat source is gas
and the drum and blower(s) are driven by an electric motor(s). Id. This
direct final rule covers consumer clothes dryers, i.e., those consumer
products that meet the definitions of ``electric clothes dryer'' and
``gas clothes dryer,'' as codified at 10 CFR 430.2.
See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product
classes analyzed in this direct final rule.
B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points of View
Under the direct final rule provision in EPCA, recommended energy
conservation standards must be submitted by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relevant points
[[Page 18175]]
of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered
products, States, and efficiency advocates) as determined by DOE. (42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) With respect to this requirement, DOE notes that
the Joint Agreement included a trade association, AHAM, which
represents 11 manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers.\31\ The Joint
Agreement also included environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy
organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, and a gas and electric
utility company. Additionally, DOE received a letter in support of the
Joint Agreement from the States of New York, California, and
Massachusetts (See comment No. 56). DOE also received a letter in
support of the Joint Agreement from a gas and electric utility, SDG&E,
and an electric utility, SCE (See comment No. 57). As a result, DOE has
determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted by interested persons
who are fairly representative of relevant points of view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ These companies include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC;
Beko US Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.;
Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; GE Appliances, a Haier Company; LG
Electronics; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Samsung Electronics
America Inc.; and Whirlpool Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. In evaluating the recommended standards proposed in the
Joint Agreement, DOE conducted the same analysis. As the first step in
such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for
consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and
other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for
improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers
technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in
working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i)
and 7(b)(1) of appendix A.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies.
Sections 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B of this document
discusses the results of the screening analysis for consumer clothes
dryers, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out,
and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this
rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this
rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the direct final rule TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Accordingly, in
the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically
feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for consumer
clothes dryers using the design parameters for the most efficient
products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech
levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section
IV.C of this document and in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each TSL considered, DOE projected energy savings from
application of the TSL to consumer clothes dryers purchased in the 30-
year period that begins in the year of compliance with the amended
standards (2027-2056 for all TSLs except the Recommended TSL (i.e., TSL
3) and 2028-2057 for TSL 3).\32\ The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of consumer clothes dryers purchased in the 30-year
analysis period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each
TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case
and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a
product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy
conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet models
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended
standards for consumer clothes dryers. The NIA spreadsheet model
(described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings
in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by
products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE
reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings,
which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and
transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy
savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also
calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes
the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary
fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a
more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation
standards.\33\ DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC
multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or
equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section
IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product
including through a direct final rule, DOE must determine that such
action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\34\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impact of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into
account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the
cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the
global climate crisis, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated, the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule
are projected to result in national energy savings of 2.7 quads, the
equivalent of the electricity
[[Page 18176]]
use of 18 million homes in one year. Based on the amount of FFC
savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and the need to
confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined the energy
savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are
``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)(VII)) The
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven
factors in this direct final rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of amended standards on manufacturers,
DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE
first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative
impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment--based on the
cost and capital requirements during the period between when a
regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the
regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The
industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the
industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by
year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of
impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on
different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small
manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic
manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the
potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital
investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of
various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of
the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP
analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating cost (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As
discussed in section IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In evaluating design options and the impact of the recommended
standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not
lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the
standards adopted in this document would not reduce the utility or
performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It
also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of
any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to
transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the
publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature
and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will
transmit a copy of this direct final rule to the Attorney General with
a request that the Department of Justice (``DOJ'') provide its
determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the
rule in determining whether to withdraw the direct final rule. DOE will
also publish and respond to the DOJ's comments in the Federal Register
in a separate document.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy
savings from the adopted standards are likely to provide improvements
to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system.
Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced
costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity
system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how
standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as
discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when
[[Page 18177]]
considering the need for national energy conservation. The adopted
standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of
reduced emissions of air pollutants and GHGs associated with energy
production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section
IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in
section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value
of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as
discussed in section IV.L of this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP
analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential amended
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. In
addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation
is discussed in section IV.F of this document.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking regarding consumer clothes dryers. Separate subsections
address each component of DOE's analyses, including relevant comments
DOE received during its separate rulemaking to amend the energy
conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers prior to receiving
the Joint Agreement.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058. Additionally, DOE used output from the
latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (``EIA's'')
Annual Energy Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023'') for the emissions and utility
impact analyses.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope
of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of consumer clothes dryers.
The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the
following sections. See chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD for
further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Product Classes
The Joint Agreement specifies seven product classes for consumer
clothes dryers. (Joint Agreement, No. 55 at p. 9). In this direct final
rule, DOE is adopting the product classes from the Joint Agreement, as
listed in Table IV.1.
Table IV.1--Joint Agreement Consumer Clothes Dryer Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product classes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity)
2. Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity)
3. Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity)
4. Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity)
5. Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity)
6. Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity)
7. Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE further notes that product classes established through EPCA's
direct final rule authority are not subject to the criteria specified
at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) for establishing product classes. However, in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)--which is applicable to direct
final rules--DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this
direct final rule will not result in the unavailability in any covered
product type (or class) of performance characteristics, features,
sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those
generally available in the United States currently.\35\ Additionally,
DOE notes that DOE's findings in this regard are discussed in detail in
section V.B.4 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ EPCA specifies that DOE may not prescribe an amended or new
standard if the Secretary finds (and publishes such finding) that
interested persons have established by a preponderance of the
evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability
in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of
performance characteristics (including reliability), features,
sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as
those generally available in the United States at the time of the
Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Technology Options
In this direct final rule, DOE considered the technology options
listed in Table IV.2, consistent with the table of technology options
presented in the August 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 51734. Chapter 3 of the TSD
for this direct final
[[Page 18178]]
rule includes a detailed list and descriptions of all technology
options identified for consumer clothes dryers. As discussed in chapter
3 of the TSD for this direct final rule, DOE has performed market
research and evaluated available consumer clothes dryers to assess
existing technology options to improve efficiency. The results of this
research are discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final
rule. DOE notes that it did not receive any comments regarding the
technology options analyzed in the August 2022 NOPR.
Table IV.2--Direct Final Rule Analysis: Technology Options for Consumer
Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dryer control or drum upgrades:
Improved termination
Increased insulation
Modified operating conditions
Improved air circulation
Improved drum design
Methods of Exhaust Heat Recovery (Vented Models Only):
Recycle exhaust heat
Inlet air preheat
Inlet air preheat, condensing mode
Moisture Removal Options:
Heat pump, electric only
Thermoelectric heating, electric only
Microwave, electric only
Modulating heat
Indirect heating
RF drying, electric only
Ultrasonic drying, electric only
Component Improvements:
Improved motor efficiency
Improved fan efficiency
Standby Power Improvements:
Transformerless power supply with auto-powerdown
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing
prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to
subgroups of consumers or result in the unavailability of any covered
product type with performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as products generally available in the United States at the time,
it will not be considered further.
(4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of
technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
The subsequent sections include DOE's evaluation of each technology
option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE
determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened Out Technologies
In conducting the screening analysis for this direct final rule,
DOE considered comments it had received in response to the screening
analysis conducted for the August 2022 NOPR.
a. Thermoelectric Heating, Electric Only
DOE notes that thermoelectric heating clothes dryers are still
undergoing preliminary research, including at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (``ORNL''). While ORNL's test results of a preliminary
prototype have shown the potential for improved efficiency, ORNL
indicated that the initial prototype design produced longer-than-
desired drying times due to direct-contact heat transfer limitations
via the drum surface. ORNL subsequently developed another prototype
that added pumped secondary water loops that transferred heat from the
thermoelectric modules to the process air via air-to-water heat
exchangers to further improve efficiency and minimize cycle length.
ORNL's testing indicated efficiency and cycle times for this prototype
that are approximately equivalent to those of vapor compression heat
pump clothes dryers.\36\ Because the research for such a thermoelectric
heating clothes dryer that produces energy savings and meets consumer
expectations for drying cycle time is still in the prototype stage, DOE
determined that this technology option would not be practicable to
manufacture, install, and service on a scale necessary to serve the
relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of any new
or amended consumer clothes dryer standards, and did not consider it
for further analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Patel, V., Boudreaux, P., and Gluesenkamp, K. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. Validated Model of a Thermoelectric Heat Pump
Clothes Dryer Using Secondary Pumped Loops. Applied Thermal
Engineering, Volume 184, February 5, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18179]]
b. Microwave, Electric Only
Due to the large energy savings associated with microwave drying,
this technology was the subject of a multiyear development effort at
the Electric Power Research Institute (``EPRI'') in the mid-1990s.\37\
At least one major manufacturer--Whirlpool--developed a countertop-
scale version of such a product as recently as 2002,\38\ but to date
this technology has not been successfully commercialized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ S. Ashley. 1998. ``Energy-Efficient Appliances,''
Mechanical Engineering Magazine, March 1998, pp. 94-97.
\38\ E. Spagat. 2002. ``Whirlpool Goes Portable to Sell Dryers
to Gen Y,'' Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microwave drying introduces significant technical and safety issues
with potential arcing from metallic objects in the fabric load,
including zippers, buttons, or ``stray'' items such as coins. While
efforts have been made to mitigate the conditions that are favorable to
arcing or to detect incipient arcing and terminate the cycle, the
possibility of fabric damage cannot be completely eliminated.\39\ In
addition to those consumer utility impacts, these conditions can also
pose a safety hazard. For these reasons, microwave drying was not
considered further for analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ J.F. Gerling. 2003. ``Microwave Clothes Drying--Technical
Solutions to Fundamental Challenges,'' Appliance Magazine, April
2003, p. 120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Indirect Heating
Indirect heating would be viable only in residences that use a
hydronic heating system. Also, in order to derive clothes dryer heat
energy from a home's heating system, significant plumbing work would be
required to circulate heated water through a heat exchanger in the
clothes dryer. Therefore, this technology option does not meet the
criterion of practicability to install on a scale necessary to serve
the relevant market at the time of the effective date of any new
standard and was not considered for further analysis.
d. RF Drying, Electric Only
CoolDry, LLC (``CoolDry'') developed an RF clothes dryer prototype,
claiming an efficiency of 90 percent, compared to 50 percent for
conventional clothes dryers.\40\ CoolDry stated that its RF drying
technology operates at lower temperatures than do conventional clothes
dryers and, because the transfer of energy to clothes is not dependent
on convective heat transfer, the RF clothes dryer requires less
tumbling and subsequently consumes less energy for drum rotation than a
conventional clothes dryer. Because this technology was in the
prototype stage at the time it was initially considered and the company
is no longer in business, research and development is unlikely to be
ongoing. Therefore, DOE determined that this technology option would
not be practicable to manufacture, install, and service on a scale
necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected
compliance date of any new or amended consumer clothes dryer standards
and did not consider it for further analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Cool Dry did not specify the metric or test method used to
determine the efficiency of its prototype.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Ultrasonic Drying, Electric Only
Researchers at ORNL have developed an ultrasonic drying prototype
that uses piezoelectric transducers to separate water from clothes
through water cavitation produced by ultrasonic vibrations. According
to their research, the energy imparted to the water must overcome
surface tension in order to break the water into droplets, but this
energy is substantially less than the latent heat of vaporization of
water, which is the primary thermodynamic barrier for conventional
evaporation drying. The ORNL researchers anticipate that ultrasonic
drying technology will result in an energy factor \41\ of greater than
10 and a drying time of less than 20 minutes.\42\ Because this
technology is still in the prototype stage, however, DOE determined
that this technology option would not be practicable to manufacture,
install, and service on a scale necessary to serve the relevant market
at the time of the projected compliance date of any new or amended
consumer clothes dryer standards and did not consider it for further
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ This energy factor incorporates only active mode energy use
and not standby mode and off mode energy use.
\42\ Momen, A. Ultrasonic Clothes Dryer: 2016 Building
Technologies Office Peer Review. 2016. Prepared for the U.S.
Department of Energy at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in
partnership with the University of Florida and General Electric, p.
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not receive any comments in response to the August 2022
NOPR regarding these screened out technology options, and for the
reasons discussed, screened out the same technologies for this direct
final rule analysis.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that
all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 of
this document met all screening criteria to be examined further as
design options in DOE's direct final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did
not screen out the following technology options:
Table IV.3--Retained Design Options for Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dryer Control or Drum Upgrades:
Improved termination
Modified operating conditions
Improved air circulation
Increased insulation
Improved drum design
Methods of Exhaust Heat Recovery (vented models only):
Recycle exhaust heat
Inlet air preheat
Inlet air preheat, condensing mode
Moisture Removal Options:
Heat pump, electric only
Modulating heat
Component Improvements:
Improved motor efficiency
Improved fan efficiency
Standby Power Improvements:
Transformerless Power Supply with Auto-Powerdown
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18180]]
DOE determined that these technology options are technologically
feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in
commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds
that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening
criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do
not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product
availability, health, or safety). For additional details, see chapter 4
of the direct final rule TSD.
As previously discussed, on February 14, 2024, DOE received a
second joint statement from the same group of stakeholders that
submitted the Joint Agreement in which the signatories reaffirmed the
standards recommended in the Joint Agreement.\43\ In particular, the
letter states that the joint stakeholders do not anticipate the
recommended standards will negatively affect features or performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of consumer clothes
dryers. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis:
the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the efficiency
analysis) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency
level (i.e., the cost analysis). In determining the performance of
higher efficiency products, DOE considers technologies and design
option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each
product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the
incremental cost for the product/equipment at efficiency levels above
the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency-level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design-option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design-option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill''
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the ``max-tech'' level (particularly
in cases where the ``max-tech'' level exceeds the maximum efficiency
level currently available on the market).
For this direct final rule, DOE used an efficiency-level approach,
supplemented with reverse engineering. This approach involved first
testing and then physically disassembling a representative sample of
commercially available products, reviewing publicly available cost
information, and modeling equipment cost. From this information and
through the reverse engineering process, DOE estimated the manufacturer
production costs (``MPCs'') for a range of products currently available
on the market, considering the design options and the steps
manufacturers would likely take to reach a certain efficiency level. As
part of this analysis, DOE included test units that represent baseline
models, newly introduced units on the market, units with unique
configurations, and units with technologies as observed in the
technology assessment. The efficiency levels analyzed as part of this
engineering analysis are attainable using commercially available
clothes dryer technologies, or technologies that have been demonstrated
in working prototypes.
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each product/equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline
model as a reference point for each class, and measures changes
resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the
baseline. The baseline model in each product/equipment class represents
the characteristics of a product/equipment typical of that class (e.g.,
capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just
meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in
place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient
unit on the market.
The baseline clothes dryer efficiency levels for this direct final
rule differ from the existing energy conservation standards that were
established in the 2011 rulemaking analysis primarily due to the
difference between the then-current appendix D1, which DOE used to
evaluate products in the previous rulemaking, and the present version
of appendix D2, established in the October 2021 TP Final Rule and which
DOE used as the basis for this analysis. Appendix D2 includes test
methods that more accurately measure the effects of automatic cycle
termination and that may result in differences in the total measured
energy consumption of the test cycle as compared to the test methods in
appendix D1. Specifically, for automatic termination control dryers,
appendix D2 requires a lower FMC of the test load and does not rely on
a field use factor to account for the over-drying energy consumption,
instead requiring that the automatic termination drying program run to
the end of the cycle. Additionally, appendix D2 contains instructions
for the testing of timer dryers, which include a lower FMC of the test
load as compared to the version of appendix D1 used for the 2011
rulemaking analysis.
For the engineering analysis, DOE began by identifying the
efficiency level corresponding to the Federal minimum energy
conservation standards for each product class. Due to the test
procedure changes adopted in the October 2021 Final Rule, DOE
determined the baseline efficiency level representative of minimally
compliant products when tested under appendix D2. To identify the
appendix D2 baseline levels, DOE tested 22 models that were certified
as minimally compliant with the current energy conservation standards,
from across all product classes. Because certified performance data are
not available for models on the market tested in accordance with both
appendix D1 and appendix D2, DOE tested each basic model in its test
sample in accordance with appendix D1 and appendix D2 and used the test
values for appendix D2 to determine the baseline models in support of
this engineering analysis. Due to the differences in the two test
procedures previously described, the baseline CEFD2 measured
using appendix D2 is numerically lower for each product class than the
corresponding CEFD1 value in the current energy conservation
standards, though that does not indicate a lower efficiency. The test
procedure differences drive the lower baseline
[[Page 18181]]
CEFD2 values and do not represent a lower efficiency or
backsliding.
With regard to the vented gas compact product class, DOE is unaware
of any currently available commercial products that fall within the
vented gas compact product class. To determine the baseline level for
this product class, DOE analyzed a vented gas compact-size model that
was previously available on the market prior to the effective date of
the current energy conservation. DOE's previous testing of that model--
which utilized electromechanical controls--suggests that the model
would not be compliant with the existing standards. DOE expects that
manufacturers would implement electronic controls as a design option to
produce vented gas compact clothes dryers that minimally comply with
the existing standard. DOE determined the efficiency performance that
would be achieved through the addition of electronic controls by
applying the same relative efficiency improvement observed with the
implementation of electronic controls for standard-size vented gas
clothes dryers, as shown in Table IV.8 in section IV.C.1.b of this
document. The resulting estimated level of baseline performance for the
vented gas compact product class is consistent with the efficiency
level recommended by the Joint Agreement for this product class.
The baseline efficiency levels considered for this analysis are
presented along with the current standards in Table IV.4 and are
discussed in more detail in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD. The
baseline values are the same as those proposed in the August 2022 NOPR,
except for the vented gas compact product class as discussed.
Table IV.4--Direct Final Rule Consumer Clothes Dryer Baseline Efficiency
Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEFD1 (lb/kWh) CEFD2 (lb/kWh)
Product class *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or 3.73 2.20
greater capacity)......................
(ii) Electric, Compact (120V) (less than 3.61 2.36
4.4 ft3 capacity)......................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) 3.27 2.00
(less than 4.4 ft3 capacity)...........
(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 cubic ft3 3.30 2.00
or greater capacity)...................
(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 3.30 2.02
ft3 capacity)..........................
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) 2.55 2.03
(less than 4.4 ft3 capacity)...........
(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination 2.08 2.27
Washer-Dryer...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As discussed, the baseline CEFD2 values represent differences in test
procedure between appendix D1 and appendix D2 and do not constitute
backsliding. CEFD2 baseline efficiency levels as measured under
appendix D2 account for differences in the effectiveness of automatic
cycle termination. Manufacturers implement automatic termination in a
variety of ways, which will impact the representations as measured
under appendix D2 and result in a range of possible CEFD2 values, as
compared to the CEFD1 values in the existing Federal standards.
b. Incremental Efficiency Levels
DOE developed incremental efficiency levels by reviewing products
currently available on the market and by testing and reverse
engineering products in the DOE test sample in support of the direct
final rule. For each product class, DOE analyzed several efficiency
levels and determined the incremental MPC at each of these levels. DOE
initially reviewed data in DOE's Compliance Certification Database
(``CCD'') to evaluate the range of efficiencies for consumer clothes
dryers currently available on the market. As discussed in chapter 5 of
the direct final rule TSD, non-ENERGY STAR-qualified products (i.e.,
generally units with lower-rated efficiencies) are typically tested
using appendix D1, while ENERGY STAR-qualified products are required to
be tested using appendix D2. As a result, DOE conducted testing on a
representative sample of non-ENERGY STAR-qualified products using
appendix D2 to determine appropriate initial incremental efficiency
levels for each product class. DOE observed that while electronic
controls are typically implemented with other design options in this
analysis, the improved automatic termination precision offered by
switching to electronic controls contributed significantly to an
increase in efficiency. This efficiency gain informed the first
incremental efficiency levels for most product classes and was noted
simply as electronic controls in the design options listed in the
tables later in this section. The design options associated with higher
efficiency levels were subsequently distinguished according to specific
design options DOE found manufacturers used to meet these higher
efficiencies. As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available
efficiency level is the highest efficiency unit currently available on
the market. DOE also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to
represent the maximum possible efficiency for a given product.
For the vented gas compact product class, no units were available
on the market at the time of the analysis whose rated value exceeded
the baseline level. Given recent market trends, DOE does not have
reason to expect manufacturers to re-introduce compact-size vented gas
clothes dryers to the market, regardless of amendments to energy
conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE did not consider any higher
efficiency levels for this product class.
In defining the incremental efficiency levels for the other product
classes for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had
received in response to the incremental efficiency levels proposed in
the August 2022 NOPR, including several from commenters who support the
Joint Agreement.
The CA IOUs supported DOE's decision to adopt the updated max-tech
levels as indicative of the growth and maturity of heat pump
technologies for vented and ventless products. The CA IOUs further
commented that adopting the max-tech levels sets a key precedent for
subsequent DOE energy efficiency and non-DOE rulemakings to represent
the true potential of a product class. (California IOUs, No. 50 at pp.
4-5)
AHAM and Whirlpool disagreed with DOE's tentative determination
that the proposed standards in the August 2022 NOPR would allow for
electromechanical controls. AHAM and Whirlpool commented that
electronic controls are required to enable the technology options for
the proposed TSL. Whirlpool further commented that electromechanical
control dryers are not sophisticated enough to enable the other
technology options that DOE described in the August 2022 NOPR analysis
and therefore could not be used effectively with the appendix D2 test
procedure. Whirlpool stated that DOE's NOPR analysis missed several key
aspects where utility and performance could be lessened in order to
meet the proposed standard levels. Whirlpool noted that the average CEF
score of the five tested units in the vented electric standard product
class with electromechanical
[[Page 18182]]
controls in the August 2022 NOPR analysis is 2.64 lb/kWh, over 30-
percent lower than the proposed standard. AHAM stated that
electromechanical controls have consumer utility in that they are easy
to use and reduce the overall costs associated with the product, and
that requiring electronic controls would result in investment costs for
manufacturers and increased purchase prices for consumers. AHAM
requested that DOE retain electromechanical controls among a consumer's
purchase options as, according to AHAM, they are a desirable feature
for reliability, they provide reduced appliance cost among consumers,
and their elimination from the market would likely cause consumers to
postpone the purchase of new dryers, in turn increasing the total
national energy consumption. Whirlpool stated concern regarding a
forced regulatory phaseout of electromechanical controls because they
are incorporated in a popular and affordable segment of consumer
clothes dryers, and noted that although some electronic controls could
be ``hidden'' from the consumer, there could be some lost utility from
the easy and low-cost repairability of electromechanical control
dryers. (AHAM, No. 46 at pp. 5, 10; Whirlpool, No. 53 at pp. 3-4)
DOE is not aware of reliability issues associated with the
implementation of electronic controls relative to electromechanical
controls. However, DOE acknowledges that a transition from
electromechanical controls to electronic controls may require
manufacturer investment costs to redesign products and would likely
increase purchase price for consumers, as captured in the incremental
costs estimated and presented in this direct final rule analysis. Based
on its analysis for this direct final rule, DOE believes that component
costs associated with the implementation of electronic controls are
lower than those estimated in the August 2022 NOPR analysis, which is
reflected in the updated MPCs for the efficiency levels that entail a
shift to electronic controls. These costs are reflected in the MPCs,
which are the basis for the LCC and PBP analyses, in which consumer
impacts related to increased purchase price and repair and maintenance
costs are considered. Additionally, DOE reevaluated repair costs and
accordingly implemented higher repair costs associated with electronic
controls in this direct final rule analysis, consistent with
Whirlpool's comments. See section IV.F of this document and chapter 8
of the direct final rule TSD for additional details.
Regarding the concern that clothes dryers equipped with
electromechanical controls could not be tested under appendix D2, DOE
notes that its test sample shows that requiring the use of the appendix
D2 test procedure will not preclude the use of electromechanical
controls. As discussed in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD, DOE
tested baseline models with electromechanical controls under appendix
D2, where available. For the ventless electric compact (240V) product
class and the ventless electric combination washer-dryer product class,
there were no baseline models identified with electromechanical
controls; however, the same efficiency-level approach was taken to
establish the efficiency-level structures for these product classes.
The baseline efficiency levels in this direct final rule represent a
minimally compliant, basic-construction consumer clothes dryer on the
market, such as a dryer with electromechanical controls, and were set
according to the lowest tested values under appendix D2 in each product
class. As Whirlpool noted, the average CEF score of the five tested
units in the vented electric standard product class with
electromechanical controls was significantly lower than the proposed
standard, further indicating the efficiency savings associated with a
transition to a combination of electronic controls and higher design
options. Regarding the concern that the proposed amended standards
would require the implementation of electronic controls, DOE reiterates
that although it expects that electronic controls are most likely to be
used to achieve higher efficiency levels, and a review of ENERGY STAR-
qualified products suggests increased prevalent use of electronic
controls, manufacturers are not required to implement these specific
design options to meet amended standards. DOE therefore does not expect
the amended standards to preclude electromechanical controls should
manufacturers choose to implement them.
Regarding AHAM and Whirlpool's comments that the required
implementation of electronic controls to reach efficiency levels above
the existing standard may result in a loss of consumer utility
associated with the traditional user interface utilizing
electromechanical controls, DOE's testing and analysis of models
currently on the market confirms Whirlpool's statement that electronic
controls may be ``hidden'' from consumers who prefer a more traditional
user interface. This may be accomplished by implementing physical dials
for consumer use that in turn manipulate the electronic controls in
order to achieve the efficiency savings associated with electronic
controls while providing the user experience of electromechanical
controls. Therefore, even if electronic controls are utilized, DOE does
not expect a loss in consumer utility associated with the use of
electromechanical controls. DOE notes that AHAM recommended the
proposed efficiency levels in the Joint Agreement on behalf of its
members, including Whirlpool, in the Joint Agreement, which includes
efficiency levels that can be achieved with the implementation of
electronic controls.
Whirlpool stated that there may be greater visibility and scrutiny
of drying times associated with electronic control clothes dryers among
consumers, as electromechanical control dryers do not display drying
times. According to Whirlpool, consumers may believe they are losing
control of their dryers in a way that results in additional energy
consumption, and DOE should account for this possible behavioral shift
and lost energy savings. (Whirlpool, No. 53 at p. 7)
DOE is not aware of any data suggesting that the behavior of
consumers of with clothes dryers utilizing electronic controls results
in greater energy use than for consumers with clothes dryers utilizing
electromechanical controls and notes that electronic controls are
typically more efficient than electromechanical controls. As previously
noted, manufacturers currently provide electronic controls that provide
the experience of electromechanical controls through the use of dials
which would avoid any loss in consumer utility.
GEA stated that while the appendix D2 test procedure requires use
of the ``normal'' or ''medium'' dryness setting for the clothes dryer
test cycle, most labs, according to GEA, understand the ``optimum''
dryness setting to be the ``normal'' setting for appendix D2. GEA
stated that it provides further clarity to consumers and test labs in
the use and care manual for products with an ``optimum'' dryness
setting by specifying that optimum is the dryness setting to use for
most clothes when running the ``cottons'' cycle (the drying cycle
recommended for certain consumer clothes dryers manufactured by GEA for
drying cotton). Therefore, based on the cycle settings provided by the
additional test information DOE published on October 13, 2022, and
information provided by Guidehouse to GEA under a non-disclosure
agreement,
[[Page 18183]]
GEA stated that DOE incorrectly tested two models in its test sample
and urged DOE to either rerun its testing, exclude the models in
question from its analysis, or accept the data provided by GEA and
adjust its savings model. (GEA, No. 49 at pp. 2-3)
DOE notes that the baseline units GEA referenced are certified
under appendix D1, and although these units were not originally
intended to be tested under the appendix D2 test procedure, DOE tested
them using the appropriate cycle settings under the appendix D2 test
procedure to support the engineering analysis. These settings were
different than the ``optimum'' dryness setting specified in the use and
care manual for these particular units. Although GEA referred to
specific cycle settings for consumer use, DOE notes that this
instruction for cycle settings does not supersede the requirements of
the appendix D2 test procedure. Additionally, DOE notes that the test
cycle settings used were within the range anticipated and not expressly
warned against by the owner's manual or use and care manual. Therefore,
DOE maintains that the correct cycle settings were used to test the
units in question.
Whirlpool stated that DOE should have presented the cycle times
before and after wrinkle prevention mode was enabled for models in the
test sample that had wrinkle prevention mode on by default. Whirlpool
further stated that models reported in the data had extremely long
cycle times, between 88 and 319 minutes, but that such times were
distorted due to testing with wrinkle protection mode enabled.
Additionally, Whirlpool stated that testing of consumer clothes dryers
with wrinkle prevention mode enabled by default may have distorted some
of the tested settings and the resulting CEF scores because wrinkle
prevention results in additional cycle time of continuous tumbling
after the heating element has been turned off. Whirlpool stated that,
this results in an energy penalty as the additional cycle time
potentially allows for moisture absorption in the test load to the
point of failing to meet the required FMC of 2 percent, and therefore a
retest is required using the highest dryness level setting associated
with more energy consumption and thus a lower average measured CEF.
Whirlpool further stated that wrinkle prevention mode does not produce
an accurate comparison of average cycle times and CEF scores of these
dryers compared to other dryers that do not have wrinkle prevention
modes enabled by default, and DOE should have also recorded the CEF
scores, FMC, and drying times of these models before they were allowed
to enter wrinkle prevention mode. Whirlpool stated that this data
should have been used to inform comparisons between dryers and the
development of baseline efficiency levels. Whirlpool stated that if
these dryers were designed to the appendix D2 test procedure, wrinkle
prevention mode would likely not have been enabled by default.
(Whirlpool, No. 53 at pp. 9-10)
In the August 2013 TP Final Rule, DOE clarified that if a clothes
dryer is equipped with a wrinkle prevention mode that is activated by
default in the as-shipped position, the cycle shall be considered
complete after the end of the wrinkle prevention mode. 76 FR 49607,
49623-49624. Although wrinkle prevention mode may have been disabled
had the test units been designed for appendix D2 testing, DOE stated
previously that accurate testing of existing baseline units according
to the appendix D2 test procedure was essential for the analysis,
including the use of optional cycle settings that are enabled by
default and that do not affect the program, temperature, or dryness
settings. The test procedure in appendix D2 therefore requires that
testing include wrinkle prevention mode if it is enabled by default.
DOE maintains, as it was unable to predict or assume the cycle settings
Whirlpool would have selected had the test units been designed for
appendix D2 testing, that the test units in question were properly
tested in accordance with appendix D2 using the correct cycle settings
consistent with the DOE test procedure.
Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD discusses the incremental
efficiency levels for each of the product classes in this analysis. The
revised CEFD2 efficiency levels for each product class are
shown below in Table IV.5 through Table IV.10, along with the current
energy conservation standards in CEFD1 for comparison. As
discussed in section IV.C.1.a of this document, the baseline
CEFD2 values estimated for the preliminary analysis are
lower than the current CEFD1 values in the energy
conservation standards due to the differences in testing between
appendix D1 and appendix D2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ DOE is aware of consumer clothes dryers in the electric
standard product class that perform at higher efficiencies than the
proposed max-tech level, but those models are not representative of
the typical capacity in the electric standard product class.
Therefore, based on the certified performance of those models and
additional investigative testing, DOE determined a representative
max-tech efficiency for the electric standard product class that
reflects an appropriate, representative unit capacity. See chapter 5
of the final rule TSD for more information.
Table IV.5--Direct Final Rule Analysis: Electric Standard Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
standard CEFD1 DFR CEFD2 (lb/
Efficiency level (``EL'') Design option (lb/kWh) kWh) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................... Baseline (Electromechanical 3.73 2.20
Controls).
1.......................................... Baseline + Electronic Controls..... .............. 2.68
2.......................................... EL1 + Optimized Heating System..... .............. 3.04
3.......................................... EL2 + More Advanced Automatic .............. 3.27
Termination Control System.
4.......................................... EL3 + Modulating (2-Stage) Heat.... .............. 3.93
5.......................................... EL4 + Inlet Air Preheat............ .............. 4.21
6.......................................... Hybrid Heat Pump Dryer (Additional .............. 5.20
Resistance Heater).
7.......................................... Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech)......... .............. \44\ 7.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As discussed above, the baseline CEFD2 values represent differences in test procedure between appendix D1 and
appendix D2 and do not constitute backsliding.
[[Page 18184]]
Table IV.6--Direct Final Rule Analysis: Electric Compact (120V)--Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
standard CEFD1 DFR CEFD2 (lb/
Efficiency level Design option (lb/kWh) kWh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................... Baseline (Electromechanical 3.61 2.36
Controls).
1.......................................... Baseline + Electronic Controls..... .............. 3.15
2.......................................... EL1 + Optimized Heating System..... .............. 3.35
3.......................................... EL2 + More Advanced Automatic .............. 4.28
Termination Control System.
4.......................................... EL3 + Modulating (2-Stage) Heat.... .............. 4.33
5.......................................... EL4 + Inlet Air Preheat............ .............. 4.63
6.......................................... Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech)......... .............. 6.37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.7--Direct Final Rule Analysis: Vented Electric Compact (240V) Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
standard CEFD1 DFR CEFD2 (lb/
Efficiency level Design option (lb/kWh) kWh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................... Baseline (Electromechanical 3.27 2.00
Controls).
1.......................................... Baseline + Electronic Controls..... .............. 2.44
2.......................................... EL1 + Optimized Heating System..... .............. 2.76
3.......................................... EL2 + More Advanced Automatic .............. 3.30
Termination Control System.
4.......................................... EL3 + Modulating (2-Stage) Heat.... .............. 3.57
5.......................................... EL4 + Inlet Air Preheat............ .............. 3.82
6.......................................... Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech)......... .............. 3.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.8--Direct Final Rule Analysis: Vented Gas Standard Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
standard CEFD1 DFR CEFD2 (lb/
Efficiency level Design option (lb/kWh) \45\ kWh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................... Baseline (Electromechanical 3.30 2.00
Controls).
1.......................................... Baseline + Electronic Controls..... .............. 2.44
2.......................................... EL1 + Optimized Heating System and .............. 3.00
More Advanced Automatic
Termination Control System.
3.......................................... EL2 + Modulating (2-Stage) Heat.... .............. 3.48
4.......................................... EL3 + Inlet Air Preheat (Max-Tech). .............. 3.83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The current standard does not distinguish a separate
product class for compact-size gas consumer clothes dryers. As such,
the current standard may apply to all gas consumer clothes dryers.
Table IV.9--Direct Final Rule Analysis: Ventless Electric Compact (240V) Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
standard CEFD1 DFR CEFD2 (lb/
Efficiency level Design option (lb/kWh) kWh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................... Baseline (Electronic Controls)..... 2.55 2.03
1.......................................... Baseline + More Advanced Automatic .............. 2.68
Termination Control System.
2.......................................... Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech)......... .............. 6.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.10--Direct Final Rule Analysis: Ventless Electric Combination Washer-Dryer Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
standard CEFD1 DFR CEFD2 (lb/
Efficiency level Design option (lb/kWh) kWh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................... Baseline (Electronic Controls)..... 2.08 2.27
1.......................................... Baseline + High-Speed Spin......... .............. 2.33
2.......................................... Heat Pump Dryer (Max-Tech)......... .............. 4.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18185]]
2. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the product
on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available product, component by component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using physical
product teardowns to determine the baseline MPC for each product class
as outlined in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD. DOE developed
the cost-efficiency relationships for each product class as discussed
in section IV.C.3 of this document. DOE developed incremental MPCs
based on product teardowns and manufacturing cost modeling of the
expected design changes at each efficiency level. DOE observed that the
basic product designs of vented electric and vented gas clothes dryers
are similar except for the heating system. DOE also observed that the
technology designs of standard-size and compact-size consumer clothes
dryers are similar as well, simply scaled in size. As a result, in the
absence of models available on the market at certain efficiency levels
for certain product classes, DOE estimated the incremental MPC for
these based on the same design changes observed for the electric
standard product class. DOE updated the cost-efficiency analysis from
the preliminary analysis by updating the costs of raw materials and
purchased components, as well as updating costs for manufacturing
equipment, labor, and depreciation. DOE also used information from the
teardown of units in the updated test sample to inform updates to the
cost-efficiency analysis. Not all units in the updated test sample were
torn down; DOE focused on units recently introduced in the market,
units with unique configuration, and units with technologies that were
not available at the time of the preliminary analysis to better inform
the costs associated with particular product classes and design
options.
The resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the MPC
estimates in this direct final rule. The baseline MPCs for each
consumer clothes dryer product class are listed in Table IV.11, with
all costs presented in 2022 dollars.
Table IV.11--Direct Final Rule Analysis: Consumer Clothes Dryer Baseline
Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline MPC
Product class (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (ft3) or greater 268.90
capacity)..............................................
(ii) Electric, Compact (120 volts (V)) (less than 4.4 284.06
ft3 capacity)..........................................
(iii) Vented Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 ft3 284.91
capacity)..............................................
(iv) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 cubic ft3 or greater 303.39
capacity)..............................................
(v) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity).... 329.94
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 453.09
ft3 capacity)..........................................
(vii) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer....... 611.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC.
The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') is the price at
which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed
an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'') 10-K reports filed by publicly traded
manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose
combined product range includes consumer clothes dryers.\46\ See
section IV.J.2.d of this document and chapter 12 of the direct final
rule TSD for additional information on the manufacturer markup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Electronic Data
Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (``EDGAR'') system. Available at
www.sec.gov/edgar/search/ (last accessed April 21, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
The results of the engineering analysis are presented as cost-
efficiency data for each of the efficiency levels for each of the
product classes that were analyzed, as well as those extrapolated from
a product class with similar features. DOE developed estimates of MPCs
for each unit in the teardown sample to develop a comprehensive set of
incremental MPCs (i.e., the additional costs manufacturers would likely
incur by producing consumer clothes dryers at each efficiency level
compared to the baseline).
The resulting incremental MPCs from this analysis are provided in
Table IV.12 through Table IV.17. See chapter 5 of the direct final rule
TSD for additional detail on the engineering analysis.
[[Page 18186]]
Table IV.12--Direct Final Rule Analysis: Electric Standard Incremental
Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Efficiency level Design option MPC (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................... Baseline ..............
(Electromechanical
Controls).
1.............................. Baseline + Electronic 5.60
Controls.
2.............................. EL1 + Optimized Heating 8.60
System.
3.............................. EL2 + More Advanced 9.15
Automatic Termination
Control System.
4.............................. EL3 + Modulating (2- 15.19
Stage) Heat.
5.............................. EL4 + Inlet Air Preheat 60.11
6.............................. Hybrid Heat Pump Dryer 231.01
(Additional Resistive
Heater).
7.............................. Heat Pump Dryer (Max- 240.85
Tech).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.13--Direct Final Rule Analysis: Electric Compact (120V)
Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Efficiency level Design option MPC (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................... Baseline ..............
(Electromechanical
Controls).
1.............................. Baseline + Electronic 7.00
Controls.
2.............................. EL1 + Optimized Heating 11.81
System.
3.............................. EL2 + More Advanced 12.63
Automatic Termination
Control System.
4.............................. EL3 + Modulating (2- 19.43
Stage) Heat.
5.............................. EL4 + Inlet Air Preheat 70.28
6.............................. Heat Pump Dryer (Max- 225.41
Tech).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.14--Direct Final Rule Analysis: Vented Electric Compact (240V)
Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Efficiency level Design option MPC (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................... Baseline ..............
(Electromechanical
Controls).
1.............................. Baseline + Electronic 7.63
Controls.
2.............................. EL1 + Optimized Heating 12.43
System.
3.............................. EL2 + More Advanced 13.26
Automatic Termination
Control System.
4.............................. EL3 + Modulating (2- 20.06
Stage) Heat.
5.............................. EL4 + Inlet Air Preheat 70.90
6.............................. Heat Pump Dryer (Max- 226.03
Tech).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.15--Direct Final Rule Analysis: Vented Gas Standard Incremental
Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Efficiency level Design option MPC (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................... Baseline ..............
(Electromechanical
Controls).
1.............................. Baseline + Electronic 9.64
Controls.
2.............................. EL1 + Optimized Heating 11.55
System and More
Advanced Automatic
Termination Control
System.
3.............................. EL2 + Modulating (2- 21.59
Stage) Heat.
4.............................. EL3 + Inlet Air Preheat 66.52
(Max-Tech).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.16--Direct Final Rule Analysis: Ventless Electric Compact
(240V) Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Efficiency level Design option MPC (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................... Baseline (Electronic ..............
Controls).
1.............................. Baseline + More 2.35
Advanced Automatic
Termination Control
System.
2.............................. Heat Pump Dryer (Max- 196.51
Tech).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18187]]
Table IV.17--Direct Final Rule Analysis: Ventless Electric Combination
Washer-Dryer Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Efficiency level Design option MPC (2022$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................... Baseline (Electronic ..............
Controls).
1.............................. Baseline + High-Speed * 0.00
Spin.
2.............................. Heat Pump Dryer (Max- 420.04
Tech).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Most ventless electric combination washer-dryers are already equipped
with a spin-only mode option as a standard feature resulting in an
incremental MPC of $0.00 for this design option.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g.,
manufacturer markups, retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor
markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP
estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which
are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis. At each step in the
distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to
cover business costs and profit margin.
DOE considered two distribution channels through which consumer
clothes dryers move from manufacturers to consumers. The majority of
consumer clothes dryer sales go through the direct retailer channel, in
which manufacturers sell the products directly to retailers, who then
sell to consumers. This direct retailer channel accounts for 90 percent
of the consumer clothes dryer market. The rest of the market goes
through a separate new construction distribution channel, in which
manufacturers sell the products to wholesalers, who in turn sell the
products to general contractors, then to consumers. The main parties in
the post-manufacturer distribution channels are retailers, wholesalers,
and contractors.
DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in
the distribution channels. Baseline markups are applied to the price of
products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are
applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher
efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental
markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to
maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or
amended standards.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate
average baseline and incremental markups. Specifically, DOE used the
2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the ``electronics and appliance
stores'' sector to develop retailer markups; \48\ the 2017 Annual
Wholesale Trade Survey for ``household appliances, and electrical and
electronic goods merchant wholesalers'' to estimate wholesaler markups;
\49\ and the 2017 Economic Census for the residential construction
sector to derive general contractor markups.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Retail Trade Survey. 2017.
Available at www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts.html (last
accessed Feb. 1, 2022).
\49\ U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Wholesale Trade Survey. 2017.
Available at www.census.gov/wholesale/ (last accessed Feb.
1, 2022).
\50\ U.S. Census Bureau. 2017 Economic Census: Construction
Industry Series: Detailed Statistics for Establishments: 2017. New
Single-Family General Contractors, New Multifamily Housing
Construction (Except Operative Builders), New Housing Operative
Builders, and Residential Remodelers. Sector 23: 236115 through
236118. 2017. U.S. Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 6 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's
development of markups for consumer clothes dryers.
E. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of consumer clothes dryers at different efficiencies
in representative U.S. single-family homes, multifamily residences, and
mobile homes and to assess the energy savings potential of increased
consumer clothes dryer efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates
the range of energy use of consumer clothes dryers in the field (i.e.,
as they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis
provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly
assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating
costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.
In conducting the energy use analysis for this direct final rule,
DOE considered comments it had received in response to the proposed
analysis in the August 2022 NOPR. DOE received a comment from AHAM
regarding the number of annual use cycles in the August 2022 NOPR
energy use analysis. AHAM requested that DOE review the 2020
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``2020 RECS'') data \51\ and
adjust the annual number of cycles accordingly. AHAM stated that it
previously commented that RECS 2015 suggested an annual number of
cycles of 236 as opposed to the 283 cycles in the current test
procedure, which is consistent with the observation that clothes washer
cycles have decreased in number to 234 cycles per year using the 2015
RECS. According to AHAM, it does not make sense for clothes washer
cycles to decrease and clothes dryer cycles to increase or even stay
the same. AHAM suggested that based on the 2020 RECS, the annual number
of cycles should be 209. (AHAM, No. 46 at p. 12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ The Residential Energy Consumption Survey 2020 data is
available at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the August 2022 NOPR analysis, DOE used data from the EIA's 2015
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``2015 RECS'') to establish a
reasonable range of energy consumption in the field for consumer
clothes dryers. DOE noted that the microdata for the 2020 RECS was not
available at the time the NOPR analysis was conducted but stated that
it would update the underlying data to 2020 RECS if it was available
prior to the final rule. 87 FR 51762. DOE is aware that the 2020 RECS
has been published.\52\ This survey collected data from 18,496 housing
units and was designed by EIA to represent the household population in
the United States. Therefore, DOE has integrated this data into its
analysis for the direct final rule concerning households using clothes
dryers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2020 Public
Use Data Files. Available at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/index.php?view=microdata (last accessed April 21, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE divided the sample of households into four subsamples for the
product classes being analyzed:
[[Page 18188]]
standard or compact consumer clothes dryers using electricity or
natural gas as the dryer fuel. For compact consumer clothes dryers, DOE
developed a subsample consisting of households with an electric or gas
clothes dryer in multifamily buildings, manufactured homes, and single-
family homes with less than 1,000 square feet and no garage or
basement, since these products are most likely to be found in these
housing types.
The energy use analysis requires DOE to establish a range of total
annual usage (number of cycles) in order to estimate annual energy
consumption by a clothes dryer. DOE estimated the number of clothes
dryer cycles per year for each sample household using data from the
2020 RECS on the number of laundry loads washed (clothes washer cycles)
per week and the frequency of clothes dryer use. The average annual
energy consumption was then calculated, reflecting an average annual
sample-weighted usage of 213 cycles per year.
For each considered efficiency level, DOE derived the field energy
use by separately estimating the active mode and standby mode energy
use and then adding them together. The per-cycle active mode energy
consumption was estimated using the DOE clothes dryer test procedure at
appendix D2. It was then back calculated from the test procedure
results by dividing the weight (lb) of clothes dried per-cycle (i.e.,
8.45 lb for standard and 3 lb for compact consumer clothes dryers) by
the CEFD2 (lb/kWh) and subtracting standby power. DOE
adjusted the test procedure energy use to reflect field conditions by
making an adjustment for clothes dryer load weight and moisture removal
factor. Chapter 7 of the direct final rule TSD provides more detail
about these calculations.
DOE also considered the impact of clothes dryer operation on home
heating and cooling loads, given that a clothes dryer releases heat to
the surrounding environment. If the clothes dryer is located indoors,
its use will tend to slightly reduce the heating load during the
heating season and slightly increase the cooling load during the
cooling season. To calculate this impact, DOE first estimated whether
the clothes dryer in a RECS sample home is located in conditioned space
(referred to as ``indoors'') or in unconditioned space (e.g., garages,
unconditioned basements, outdoor utility closets, or attics). Based on
the 2020 RECS and the 2019 American Housing Survey (``AHS''),\53\ DOE
assumed that 50 percent of vented standard electric and gas consumer
clothes dryers are located indoors, while 100 percent of compact and
ventless consumer clothes dryers are located indoors. For these
installations, DOE used the results from a European Union study about
the impacts of consumer clothes dryers on home heating and cooling
loads to determine the appropriate factor to apply to the total clothes
dryer energy use.\54\ This study reported that for vented consumer
clothes dryers, there is a factor of negative 3 to 9 percent (average 3
percent), and for ventless consumer clothes dryers there is a factor of
positive 7 to 15 percent (average 11 percent).\55\ This effect is
likely to be approximately the same for all of the considered
efficiency levels because the amount of air passing through the clothes
dryer does not vary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ U.S. Census Bureau: Housing and Household Economic
Statistics Division, American Housing Survey National Data. 2019,
HUD. Available at www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2019/ahs-
2019-public-use-file_puf-.html (last accessed April 6, 2023).
\54\ R[uuml]denauer, I. and C.-O. Gensch, Energy demand of
tumble driers with respect to differences in technology and ambient
conditions, January 13, 2004. European Committee of Domestic
Equipment Manufacturers (CECED).
\55\ For units that are located in conditioned space, a negative
factor for vented consumer clothes dryers translates to a penalty in
energy use, whereas a positive factor for ventless consumer clothes
dryers translates to a credit in energy use. For details of the
calculations, see the R[uuml]denauer and Gensch study referenced
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 7 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's
energy use analysis for consumer clothes dryers.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for
consumer clothes dryers. The effect of new or amended energy
conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a
reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used
the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them
over the lifetime of the product.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the
estimated efficiency distribution of consumer clothes dryers in the
absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast,
the PBP for a given efficiency level is measured relative to the
baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of
housing units. As stated previously, DOE developed household samples
from the 2020 RECS. For each sample household, DOE determined the
energy consumption for the consumer clothes dryers and the appropriate
energy price. By developing a representative sample of households, the
analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy
prices associated with the use of consumer clothes dryers.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to
the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created
distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales
taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their
uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte
Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from
the probability distributions and consumer clothes dryer user samples.
For this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS
Excel together with the Crystal Ball\TM\ add-on.\56\ The model
calculated the LCC for products
[[Page 18189]]
at each efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per simulation run.
The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points
showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative
to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an
iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product
efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen product
efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard
level under consideration, the LCC calculation reveals that a consumer
is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who
already purchase more efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the
potential benefits from increasing product efficiency. DOE calculated
the LCC and PBP for consumers of consumer clothes dryers as if each
were to purchase a new product in the first year of required compliance
with new or amended standards. New and amended standards apply to
consumer clothes dryers manufactured 3 years after the date on which
any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i))
Therefore, DOE used 2027 as the first year of compliance with any
amended standards for consumer clothes dryers for all the TSLs other
than TSL 3. For TSL 3, DOE used 2028 as the first year of compliance
for all product classes as specified for the Recommended TSL in the
Joint Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Crystal Ball\TM\ is a commercially available software tool
to facilitate the creation of these types of models by generating
probability distributions and summarizing results within Excel,
available at www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/ (last accessed May 17, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.18 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8
of the direct final rule TSD and its appendices.
Table IV.18--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Costs..................... Derived by multiplying MPCs by
manufacturer and retailer markups
and sales tax or by manufacturer,
wholesaler, and general contractor
markups and sales tax, as
appropriate. Used historical data
to derive a price scaling index to
project product costs.
Installation Costs................ Baseline installation cost
determined with data from RSMeans
Residential Cost Data 2022. Assumed
no change with efficiency level.
Annual Energy Use................. Total per-cycle energy use
multiplied by the cycles per year.
Average number of cycles based on
field data.
Variability: Based on the 2020 RECS
(dryer usage), market data on
remaining moisture content (RMC),
and load weights.
Energy Prices..................... Electricity: Based on EIA's Form 861
data for 2022.
Variability: Regional energy prices
by Census Division.
Energy Price Trends............... Based on AEO2023 energy price
projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs...... Repair costs vary between
electromechanical and electronic
control timers.
Product Lifetime.................. Average: 14 years.
Discount Rates.................... Approach involves identifying all
possible debt or asset classes that
might be used to purchase the
considered appliances or that might
be affected indirectly. Primary
data source was the Federal Reserve
Board's Survey of Consumer
Finances.
Compliance Date................... TSL 1, TSL 2, TSL 4, TSL 5, and TSL
6: 2027.
TSL 3 (The Recommended TSL): 2028.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources
mentioned in this table are provided in the following sections or in
chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD.
For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received
regarding the methodology for evaluating consumer economic impact that
were submitted in response to the August 2022 NOPR. The approach used
for this direct final rule is largely the same approach DOE had used
for the August 2022 NOPR analysis.
In response to the August 2022 NOPR AHAM recommended that DOE
modify the way consumer economic impact is analyzed and look at the
probability that individual consumers will benefit from standards
rather than whether the aggregate benefit is positive. (AHAM, No. 46 at
p. 13)
In the LCC analysis, DOE notes that it does estimate the impact of
potential standards on individual consumers in the household sample and
considers the share of consumers that would benefit from a standard as
part of its evaluation regarding whether particular standards are
economically justified.
1. Product Cost
To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described
previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for
baseline products and higher efficiency products because DOE applies an
incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher
efficiency products.
Economic literature and historical data suggest that the real costs
of many products may trend downward over time according to ``learning''
or ``experience'' curves. Experience curve analysis implicitly includes
factors such as efficiencies in labor, capital investment, automation,
materials prices, distribution, and economies of scale at an industry-
wide level. To derive the learning rate parameter for consumer clothes
dryers, DOE obtained historical Producer Price Index (``PPI'') data
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (``BLS'') for ``household laundry
equipment'' between 1947 and 2016 and ``major household appliance:
primary products'' between 2016 and 2022 to form a time series price
index representing household laundry equipment from 1947 to 2022.\57\
Inflation-adjusted price indices were calculated by dividing the PPI
series by the gross domestic product index from the Bureau of Economic
Analysis for the same years. Using this data from 1947 to 2022, the
estimated learning rate (defined as the fractional reduction in price
from each doubling of cumulative production) is 17.2 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ ``Household laundry equipment'' PPI (PCU3352203352204) is
available through May 2016, and ``major household appliance: primary
products'' PPI (PCU335220335220P) is available from May 2016 to
present. See more information at www.bls.gov/ppi/ (last accessed
Nov. 29, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received
regarding the methodology for calculating consumer product costs that
were submitted in response to the August 2022 NOPR. The approach used
[[Page 18190]]
for this direct final rule is largely the same approach DOE had used
for the August 2022 NOPR analysis.
In response to the August 2022 NOPR, AHAM stated that DOE's pricing
estimates are incorrect because currently, publicly available retail
market prices for the lowest-priced units (many of which are equipped
with electromechanical controls) are approximately $400, and DOE's
estimate for a baseline standard electric unit is $607. (AHAM, No. 46
at pp. 5-6, 8)
Whirlpool stated that DOE does not consider retail prices for
models actually being sold in the market today that meet varying
efficiency levels and actually utilize technology options needed to
meet TSL 3. Whirlpool commented that retail price differences between
$200 and $300 may be a better reflection of the expected price premiums
for consumers from amended standards than DOE's analysis and
methodology. (Whirlpool, No. 53 at p. 7)
In response, DOE notes that the actual retail price differences
between a baseline and higher efficiency level currently on the market
may include the price for other premium features in addition to
engineering designs relating to efficiency. Additionally, retail prices
reflect economies of scale in production as well as marketing
strategies and profit margins of manufacturers and retailers. DOE
maintains that its traditional approach, which has been subject to peer
review, is better able to identify the incremental costs that are only
connected to higher efficiency. Furthermore, in this direct final rule
analysis, DOE leveraged web scraping to gather data on clothes dryer
models available on the market from January to March 2023. The data was
collected from major retail outlets, including Best Buy, Lowe's, and AJ
Madison. DOE found that the lowest-priced baseline model cost $630. DOE
therefore concluded that its baseline estimate for a standard electric
unit is reasonable for this direct final rule.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE used data from
RSMeans Residential Cost Data to estimate the baseline installation
cost for consumer clothes dryers.\58\ DOE estimated that for the new
construction market, it takes, on average, 1 hour to install a clothes
dryer, while for the replacement or new-owner market, it takes 2.5
hours (i.e., 1 hour for the trip charge, 30 minutes to remove the old
clothes dryer, and 1 hour to install). DOE found no evidence that
increased efficiency levels would impact installation costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ RSMeans Online Residential Data (2022 Release). Gordian:
Greenville, SC. Available at www.rsmeansonline.com (last accessed
April 6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy consumption
for a consumer clothes dryer at different efficiency levels using the
approach described previously in section IV.E of this document.
4. Energy Prices
Because marginal electricity and gas prices more accurately capture
the incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from
higher efficiency, they provide a better representation of incremental
change in consumer costs than average electricity and gas prices.
Therefore, DOE applied average electricity and gas prices for the
energy use of the product purchased in the no-new-standards case, and
marginal electricity and gas prices for the incremental change in
energy use associated with the other efficiency levels considered.
DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 using data from EEI Typical
Bills and Average Rates reports. Based upon comprehensive, industry-
wide surveys, this semi-annual report presents typical monthly electric
bills and average kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as charged by
investor-owned utilities. For the residential sector, DOE calculated
electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and
Beraki (2018).\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential Electricity
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001169.
Available at ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review (last accessed April 6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE obtained data for calculating regional prices of natural gas
from the EIA publication Natural Gas.\60\ This publication presents
monthly volumes of natural gas deliveries and average prices by state
for residential, commercial, and industrial customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Natural Gas Navigator 2022. Available at
www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.php (last accessed April 6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's methodology allows electricity and gas prices to vary by
sector, region, and season. In the analysis, variability in electricity
and gas prices is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer
economic and energy use characteristics are defined in the LCC
analysis. For consumer clothes dryers, DOE calculated weighted average
values for average and marginal electricity and gas price for the nine
census divisions. See chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD for
details.
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2022
energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes for
each of the nine census divisions from the Reference case in AEO2023,
which has an end year of 2050.\61\ To estimate price trends after 2050,
the 2046-2050 average was used for all years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2023 with Projections to 2050.
Washington, DC. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ (last
accessed May 7, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product
components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Past rules
indicate in general that small, incremental increases in product
efficiency produce no, or only minor, changes in repair and maintenance
costs compared to baseline efficiency products. 76 FR 22454.
For consumer clothes dryers, DOE derived an annualized repair rate
based on Consumer Reports data on repair and maintenance issues for
consumer clothes dryers. DOE estimated that the average repair rate
(which measures the repair frequency) for electric and gas consumer
clothes dryers is 12 percent and 14 percent, respectively. The most
likely repairs concern the electromechanical control unit or the
electronic control unit. The repair costs are annualized by dividing by
the average equipment lifetime of 14 years.
For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received
regarding the maintenance and repair costs that were submitted in
response to the August 2022 NOPR. Whirlpool stated that DOE's NOPR
analysis failed to adequately account for the increased repair costs
associated with more advanced and expensive electronic parts in
electronic control dryers, which would be mandated through DOE's
proposed standards. Whirlpool commented that a timer replacement on an
electromechanical control dryer will be significantly cheaper than the
replacement of an equivalent failed component on an electronic control
dryer, with major component differences being the timer, push-to-start
button, rotary switch, buzzer, appliance control unit, and user
interface assembly. (Whirlpool, No. 53 at pp. 8-9)
[[Page 18191]]
As previously stated, for this direct final rule, DOE has updated
its methodology for estimating repair costs and included repair costs
associated with timer replacement in both electromechanical control and
electronic control dryers. Based on the information provided by
Whirlpool and a literature review, DOE estimated the repair cost to be
$75 for an electromechanical control unit and $225 for an electronic
control unit.
6. Product Lifetime
For consumer clothes dryers, DOE developed a distribution of
lifetimes from which specific values were assigned to the appliances in
the test sample. DOE analyzed actual lifetime in the field using a
combination of historical shipments data, the stock of the considered
appliances in the American Housing Survey, and responses in a number of
RECS on the age of the appliances in the homes. The data allowed DOE to
estimate a survival function, which provided an average appliance
lifetime of approximately 14 years. From the 2015 RECS to the 2020
RECS, there was a 6-percent increase in the number of consumer clothes
dryers retiring before reaching 4 years of age, and an additional 1
percent lasting beyond 15 years. Therefore, for this direct final rule,
DOE's estimated average lifetime for consumer clothes dryers remains 14
years, with a distribution that includes 1 percent more dryers retiring
before reaching 4 years and 2 percent more dryers remaining after 15
years and up to 30 years, compared to the NOPR Weibull lifetime
probability distribution. See chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD
for further details.
7. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate
to households to estimate the present value of future operating cost
savings. DOE estimated a distribution of discount rates for consumer
clothes dryers based on the opportunity cost of consumer funds.
DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount
rates.\62\ The LCC analysis estimates net present value over the
lifetime of the product, so the appropriate discount rate will reflect
the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking this time scale
into account. Given the long-time horizon modeled in the LCC, the
application of a marginal interest rate associated with an initial
source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase,
consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt and asset
holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the restrictions
consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the relative size
of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the
aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical distribution
of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the
influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a
consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is
not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of
factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the
opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data
from the Federal Reserve Board's triennial Survey of Consumer Finances
\63\ (``SCF'') starting in 1995 and ending in 2019. Using the SCF and
other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for each type of
debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that may apply in
the year in which amended standards would take effect. DOE assigned
each sample household a specific discount rate drawn from one of the
distributions. The average rate across all types of household debt and
equity and income groups, weighted by the shares of each type, is 4.3
percent. See chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD for further details
on the development of consumer discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010,
2013, 2016, and 2019. Available at www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm (last accessed May 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected
distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-
standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy
conservation standards).
To estimate the energy efficiency distribution of consumer clothes
dryers for 2027 or 2028, DOE used 2021 model data from DOE's CCD and
shipments data for consumer clothes dryers from the ENERGY STAR
program.64 65 Based on the historical shipments trend of
ENERGY STAR-qualified consumer clothes dryers, DOE estimated an annual
0.47-percent and 0.02-percent increase in shipment-weighted efficiency
for electric standard and vented gas standard clothes dryers,
respectively, beginning in 2021. Annual shipment-weighted efficiency
for the other product classes (which in total have less than 2.5-
percent market share) is held constant. The estimated market shares for
the no-new-standards case for consumer clothes dryers are shown in
Table IV.19 and Table IV.20. See chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD
for further information on the derivation of the efficiency
distributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification
Database. Available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (last accessed April 17, 2023).
\65\ ENERGY STAR, ENERGY STAR[supreg] Unit Shipment and Market
Penetration Report Calendar Year 2021 Summary. Available at
www.energystar.gov/partner_resources/products_partner_resources/brand_owner_resources/unit_shipment_data (last accessed April 17,
2023).
Table IV.19--No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution in 2027 and 2028: Electric Standard, Electric Compact (120V), Electric Compact (240V), and
Ventless Electric Compact (240V)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric standard Electric compact (120V) Vented electric compact Ventless electric compact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (240V) (240V)
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEFD2 (lb/kWh) Market share CEFD2 (lb/ Market share CEFD2 (lb/ Market share CEFD2 (lb/ Market share
(%) kWh) (%) kWh) (%) kWh) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.20.................................... 14 2.36 20 2.00 35 2.03 14
[[Page 18192]]
2.68.................................... 13 3.15 15 2.44 25 2.68 59
3.04.................................... 13 3.35 25 2.76 30 6.80 28
3.27.................................... 9 4.28 0 3.30 10
3.93.................................... 42 4.33 0 3.57 0
4.21.................................... * 6 (7) 4.63 0 3.82 0
5.20.................................... 2 6.37 40 3.91 0
7.39.................................... 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The value in the parentheses indicates 2028 market share.
Table IV.20 No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution in 2027 and 2028: Vented Gas Standard, and Ventless
Electric Combination Washer-Dryer *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vented gas standard Ventless electric, combination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- washer-dryer
-------------------------------
CEFD2 (lb/kWh) Market share CEFD2 (lb/ Market share
(%) kWh) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.00............................................................ 15 2.27 39
2.44............................................................ 19 2.33 58
3.00............................................................ 18 4.01 3
3.48............................................................ 48
3.83............................................................ 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* There are no models or shipments data for vented gas compact clothes dryers on the market.
The LCC Monte Carlo simulations draw from the efficiency
distributions and randomly assign an efficiency to the consumer clothes
dryers purchased by each sample household in the no-new-standards case.
The resulting percentage shares within the sample match the market
shares in the efficiency distributions.
In the August 2022 NOPR, DOE performed a random assignment of
efficiency levels to consumers in its Monte Carlo sample. While DOE
acknowledges that economic factors may play a role when consumers
decide on what type of clothes dryers to install, assignment of clothes
dryer efficiency for a given installation, based solely on economic
measures such as life-cycle cost or simple payback period, most likely
would not fully and accurately reflect actual real-world installations.
There are a number of market failures discussed in the economics
literature that illustrate how purchasing decisions with respect to
energy efficiency are unlikely to be perfectly correlated with energy
use, as described below. DOE maintains that the method of assignment,
is a reasonable approach, because it simulates behavior in the clothes
dryer market, where market failures result in purchasing decisions not
being perfectly aligned with economic interests, more realistically
than relying only on apparent cost-effectiveness criteria derived from
the limited information in RECS. DOE further emphasizes that its
approach does not assume that all purchasers of consumer clothes dryers
make economically irrational decisions (i.e., the lack of a correlation
is not the same as a negative correlation). As part of the random
assignment, some homes with more frequent dryer events will be assigned
higher efficiency clothes dryers, and some homes with particularly
lower dryer events will be assigned baseline units. By using this
approach, DOE acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in the data and
minimizes any bias in the analysis by using random assignment, as
opposed to assuming certain market conditions that are unsupported
given the available evidence.
The following discussion provides more detail about the various
market failures that affect consumer clothes dryer purchases. First,
consumers are motivated by more than simple financial trade-offs. There
are several behavioral factors that can influence the purchasing
decisions of complicated multi-attribute products, such as consumer
clothes dryers. For example, consumers (or decision makers in an
organization) are highly influenced by choice architecture, defined as
the framing of the decision, the surrounding circumstances of the
purchase, the alternatives available, and how they are presented for
any given choice scenario.\66\ The same consumer or decision maker may
make different choices depending on the characteristics of the decision
context (e.g., the timing of the purchase, competing demands for
funds), which have nothing to do with the characteristics of the
alternatives themselves or their prices. Consumers or decision makers
also face a variety of other behavioral phenomena including loss
aversion, sensitivity to information salience, and other forms of
bounded rationality.\67\ Thaler, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics
in 2017 for his contributions to behavioral economics, and Sunstein
point out that these behavioral factors are strongest when the
decisions are complex and infrequent, when feedback on the decision is
muted and slow, and when
[[Page 18193]]
there is a high degree of information asymmetry.\68\ These
characteristics describe almost all purchasing situations of appliances
and equipment, including consumer clothes dryers. The installation of a
new or replacement consumer clothes dryers is done very infrequently,
as evidenced by the mean lifetime of 14 years for consumer clothes
dryers. Further, if the purchaser of the consumer clothes dryer is not
the entity paying the energy costs (e.g., a building owner and tenant),
there may be little to no feedback on the purchase. Additionally, there
are systematic market failures that are likely to contribute further
complexity to how products are chosen by consumers, as explained in the
following paragraphs. The first of these market failures--the split-
incentive or principal-agent problem--is likely to significantly affect
consumer clothes dryers. The principal-agent problem is a market
failure that results when the consumer that purchases the equipment
does not internalize all of the costs associated with operating the
equipment. Instead, the user of the product, who has no control over
the purchase decision, pays the operating costs. There is a high
likelihood of split-incentive problems in the case of rental properties
where the landlord makes the choice of what consumer clothes dryers to
install, whereas the renter is responsible for paying energy bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., and Balz, J.P. (2014).
``Choice Architecture'' in The Behavioral Foundations of Public
Policy, Eldar Shafir (ed).
\67\ Thaler, R.H., and Bernartzi, S. (2004). ``Save More
Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics in Increase Employee Savings,''
Journal of Political Economy 112(1), S164-S187. See also Klemick,
H., et al. (2015) ``Heavy-Duty Trucking and the Energy Efficiency
Paradox: Evidence from Focus Groups and Interviews,'' Transportation
Research Part A: Policy & Practice, 77, 154-166 (providing evidence
that loss aversion and other market failures can affect otherwise
profit-maximizing firms).
\68\ Thaler, R.H., and Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: Improving
Decisions on Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the split-incentive problem, there are other market
failures that are likely to affect the choice of consumer clothes dryer
efficiency made by consumers. For example, unplanned replacements due
to unexpected failure of equipment such as a consumer clothes dryer are
strongly biased toward like-for-like replacement (i.e., replacing the
non-functioning equipment with a similar or identical product). Time is
a constraining factor during unplanned replacements, and consumers may
not consider the full range of available options on the market, despite
their availability. The consideration of alternative product options is
far more likely for planned replacements and installations in new
construction.
Additionally, Davis and Metcalf \69\ conducted an experiment
demonstrating that, even when consumers are presented with energy
consumption information, the nature of the information available to
consumers (e.g., from EnergyGuide labels) results in an inefficient
allocation of energy efficiency across households with different usage
levels. Their findings indicate that households are likely to make
decisions regarding the efficiency of the air conditioning equipment of
their homes that do not result in the highest net present value for
their specific usage pattern (i.e., their decision is based on
imperfect information and, therefore, is not necessarily optimal).
Also, most consumers did not properly understand the labels
(specifically whether energy consumption and cost estimates were
national averages or specific to their State). As such, consumers did
not make the most informed decisions. Consumer clothes dryers do not
require EnergyGuide labels, therefore energy consumption information is
more difficult to determine for a consumer, resulting in an even more
inefficient allocation of energy efficiency across households with
different usage levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Davis, L.W., and G.E. Metcalf (2016): ``Does better
information lead to better choices? Evidence from energy-efficiency
labels,'' Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource
Economists, 3(3), 589-625. Available at: www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/686252 (Last accessed August 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In part because of the way information is presented, and in part
because of the way consumers process information, there is also a
market failure consisting of a systematic bias in the perception of
equipment energy usage, which can affect consumer choices. Attari et
al.\70\ show that consumers tend to underestimate the energy use of
large energy-intensive appliances (such as air conditioners,
dishwashers, and clothes dryers), but overestimate the energy use of
small appliances (such as light bulbs). Therefore, it is possible that
consumers systematically underestimate the energy use associated with
consumer clothes dryers, resulting in less cost-effective purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Attari, S.Z., M.L. DeKay, C.I. Davidson, and W. Bruine de
Bruin (2010): ``Public perceptions of energy consumption and
savings.'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(37),
16054-16059. Available at: www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16054 (Last
accessed August 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These market failures affect a sizeable share of the consumer
population. A study by Houde \71\ indicates that there is a significant
subset of consumers that appear to purchase appliances without taking
into account their energy efficiency and operating costs at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Houde, S. (2018): ``How Consumers Respond to Environmental
Certification and the Value of Energy Information,'' The RAND
Journal of Economics, 49 (2), 453-477. Available at:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1756-2171.12231 (Last
accessed August 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The existence of market failures in the residential sector is well
supported by the economics literature and by a number of case studies.
If DOE developed an efficiency distribution that assigned consumer
clothes dryer efficiency in the no-new-standards case solely according
to energy use or economic considerations such as life-cycle cost or
payback period, the resulting distribution of efficiencies within the
consumer sample would not reflect any of the market failures or
behavioral factors above. Thus, DOE concludes such a distribution would
not be representative of the consumer clothes dryer market. Further,
even if a specific household is not subject to the market failures
above, the purchasing decision of consumer clothes dryer efficiency can
be highly complex and influenced by a number of factors (e.g.,
aesthetics) not captured by the building characteristics available in
the RECS sample. These factors can lead to households or building
owners choosing a consumer clothes dryer efficiency that deviates from
the efficiency predicted using only energy use or economic
considerations such as life-cycle cost or payback period (as calculated
using the information from RECS 2020).
There is a complex set of behavioral factors, with sometimes
opposing effects, affecting the consumer clothes dryer market. It is
impractical to model every consumer decision incorporating all of these
effects at this extreme level of granularity given the limited
available data. Given these myriad factors, DOE estimates the resulting
distribution of such a model, if it were possible, would be very
scattered with high variability. It is for this reason DOE utilizes a
random distribution (after accounting for efficiency market share
constraints) to approximate these effects. The methodology is not an
assertion of economic irrationality, but instead, it is a
methodological approximation of complex consumer behavior. The analysis
is neither biased toward high or low energy savings. The methodology
does not preferentially assign lower-efficiency consumer clothes dryers
to households in the no-new-standards case where savings from the rule
would be greatest, nor does it preferentially assign lower-efficiency
consumer clothes dryers to households in the no-new-standards case
where savings from the rule would be smallest. Some consumers were
assigned the clothes dryers that they would have chosen if they had
engaged in perfect economic considerations when purchasing the
products. Others were assigned less-efficient clothes dryers even where
a more-efficient product would eventually result in life-cycle savings,
simulating scenarios where, for
[[Page 18194]]
example, various market failures prevent consumers from realizing those
savings. Still others were assigned clothes dryers that were more
efficient than one would expect simply from life-cycle costs analysis,
reflecting, say, ``green'' behavior, whereby consumers ascribe
independent value to minimizing harm to the environment.
Therefore, for this direct final rule, DOE performed a random
assignment of efficiencies in the LCC analysis.
Additionally, for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments
it received regarding the projected distribution of product
efficiencies under the no-new-standards case that were submitted in
response to the August 2022 NOPR. The CA IOUs requested that DOE
clarify the changes in efficiency distributions from the 2021
preliminary analysis to the August 2022 NOPR analysis, specifically
regarding the percentage of products that meet or exceed the ENERGY
STAR level in the no-new-standards case. The CA IOUs stated that the
preliminary analysis efficiency distributions resulted in a reasonably
favorable consumer impact analysis for TSL 4. The CA IOUs recommended
that DOE reconsider the analysis and conclusion regarding TSL 4 if the
preliminary analysis efficiency distributions were more accurate. (CA
IOUs, No. 50 at pp. 3-4).
In the 2021 preliminary analysis, DOE utilized a consumer-choice
model to calculate market share of various efficiency options for
consumer clothes dryers. This model considered factors such as the
first cost for electric standard, vented gas standard, ventless
electric compact (204V), and ventless electric washer-dryer units. The
consumer-choice model relied on historical sales data from 2005 to
2011. To project the efficiency distribution for other product classes
(electric compact (120V), vented electric compact (240V), DOE used
inputs based on its own test samples and a review of models available
in the market.
In the 2022 NOPR analysis, DOE evaluated concerns expressed by
stakeholders regarding the adequacy and representativeness of the
historical sales data from 2005 to 2011. DOE recognized that these data
might not accurately reflect the correlations between shipments and
sale prices in recent years. For this reason, as well as to maintain
consistency in its methodology across product classes, DOE elected to
use CCD model counts \72\ instead of market shipments data to derive
the no-new-standards case efficiency distributions for the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ The CCD database lists basic models of certified consumer
clothes dryers that are subject to DOE's energy conservation
standards, including their rated capacities and CEF. These clothes
dryer models are submitted by manufacturers or their third-party
representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Commenters commented that the ENERGY STAR shipment data
is a better reflection of the consumer clothes dryer market than CCD
model counts. The Joint Commenters stated that according to the ENERGY
STAR shipment data, only about 40 percent of electric standard dryer
models meet TSL 3 as opposed to DOE's estimate of 65 percent. (Joint
Commenters, No. 51 at pp. 3-4).
For this direct final rule, DOE has considered the ENERGY STAR
shipment data for standard consumer clothes dryers along with other
pertinent market information. As a result, DOE has revised the market
share estimate for electric and gas standard consumer clothes dryers
meeting ENERGY STAR criteria in the compliance year. DOE reduced market
share of electric standard consumer clothes dryers that meet TSL 3 from
61 percent to 42 percent and increased market share of gas standard
consumer clothes dryers that meet TSL 3 from 38 percent to 48 percent.
For the remaining product classes, which together account for less than
2.5 percent of the total shipments, DOE has continued to use the CCD
model counts because it is not aware of other available information.
9. Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of time (expressed in years) it
takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more
efficient products, compared to baseline products, through energy cost
savings. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product mean that
the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced
operating expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the
change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. DOE
refers to this as a ``simple PBP'' because it does not consider changes
over time in operating cost savings. The PBP calculation uses the same
inputs as the LCC analysis when deriving first-year operating costs.
As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that
a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the
additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with
an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the
value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard,
as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE
determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure
and multiplying those savings by the average energy price projection
for the year in which compliance with the amended standards would be
required.
G. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation
standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\73\
The shipments model takes an accounting approach, tracking market
shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the stock.
Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age
distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The age
distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to
calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for any
year depend on the age distribution of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general,
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total product shipments for consumer clothes dryers are developed
by considering the demand from replacements for units in stock that
fail and the demand from new installations in newly constructed homes.
DOE calculated shipments due to replacements using the retirement
function developed for the LCC analysis. DOE calculated shipments due
to new installations using estimates for consumer clothes dryer
saturation rates in newly constructed homes from 2015 to 2020 in the
2020 RECS and projections of new housing starts in AEO2023.
DOE disaggregated total product shipments into each product class
using estimated market shares of each product class. To estimate these
market shares, DOE first developed a linear time series regression
model to estimate market share between the product fuel type (i.e., gas
or electric) by fitting the historical shipments of gas consumer
clothes dryers. Historical shipments data showed a steady decline of
market share of gas consumer clothes dryers, from 23 percent in 2000 to
17 percent in 2022. The linear regression model indicates that market
share of gas
[[Page 18195]]
consumer clothes dryers is strongly correlated with its historical time
series.
After developing the market share estimation between electric and
gas consumer clothes dryers, DOE then subtracted the estimated gas
clothes dryer market share from total shipments and divided the
electric clothes dryer market share into each electric consumer clothes
dryer product class. DOE estimated that electric standard and vented
gas standard consumer clothes dryers account for approximately 84
percent and 14 percent of the total shipments during the analysis
period, respectively.
To estimate shipments under a standards case, DOE considers the
impacts on shipments from changes in product purchase price and
operating cost associated with higher energy efficiency levels using a
price elasticity and an efficiency elasticity. As in the April 2021
preliminary analysis, DOE employed an efficiency elasticity rate of 0.2
percent and a price elasticity rate of -0.45 percent in its shipments
model. These values are based on analysis of aggregated data for five
residential appliances: consumer clothes washers, dishwashers,
refrigerators, freezers, and room air conditioners.\74\ The market
impact is defined as the difference between the product of price
elasticity of demand and the change in price due to a standard level,
and the product of the efficiency elasticity and the change in
operating costs due to a standard level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Fujita, K. (2015) Estimating Price Elasticity using Market-
Level Appliance Data. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-
188289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE assumed when market impact occurs (i.e., when shipments drop
under a standards case), the affected consumers would either repair
their product or purchase a used clothes dryer rather than a new one.
In the repair scenario, the model assumes that the product's life is
extended by approximately 5 years. In the used product scenario, the
model assumes the remaining average lifetime for a used clothes dryer
is 7 years. Therefore, this market impact effectively influences the
decision between repairing or replacing the product, as well as the
decision between purchasing a used dryer or a new one. See chapter 9 of
the direct final rule TSD for details.
For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it received
regarding the shipments analysis that were submitted in response to the
August 2022 NOPR. Whirlpool commented that consumers may continue
replacing cheaper components well into the life of an electromechanical
controlled dryer, extending its life, while they may not decide to make
a more expensive electronic component repair, like a user interface
assembly, after several years of ownership of an electronic control
dryer. Whirlpool stated that DOE's proposed standards may effectively
shorten the useful life of a consumer clothes dryer because of this
repair-versus-replacement calculus, resulting in loss of time-saving
benefits of dryer ownership. (Whirlpool, No. 53 at pp. 8-9)
As stated in section IV.C.1 of this document, the recommended
standards would continue to allow for electromechanical controlled
clothes dryers to be sold on the market. In addition, DOE is not aware
of reliability issues associated with the implementation of electronic
controls relative to electromechanical controls. Whirlpool's assertion
that the adopted standards may shorten the useful life of consumer
clothes dryers lacks quantitative data to support it. As stated in
section IV.F.6 of this document, DOE's lifetime estimation is
calibrated using shipments data, which include the adopted efficiency
levels of ENERGY STAR-qualified consumer clothes dryers sold in the
market. DOE's updated Weibull lifetime distribution in this direct
final rule captures the trend of shorter lifetime and delayed
replacement of consumer clothes dryers based on the recent field data.
See chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD for details.
H. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of
total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from
new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\75\
(``Consumer'' in this context refers to consumers of the product being
regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard
levels considered based on projections of annual product shipments,
along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data
from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE
projected the energy savings, operating cost savings, product costs,
and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of consumer clothes
dryers sold from 2027 through 2056 for all TSLs other than 2028 through
2057 for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL detailed in the Joint Agreement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S.
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each
product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation
standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in
efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of
efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with
projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE
adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels
(i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) for that class. For the standards
cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the
market shares of products with efficiencies greater than the standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and
the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities
within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values
(as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
Table IV.21 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the direct final rule. Discussion of these inputs and
methods follows the table. See chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD
for further details.
Table IV.21--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments......................... Annual shipments from shipments
model.
Compliance Date of Standard....... TSL 1, TSL 2, TSL 4, TSL 5, and TSL
6: 2027.
TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL): 2028.
[[Page 18196]]
Efficiency Trends................. No-new-standards case: Annual
efficiency improvement of 0.47% for
electric standard and 0.02% for
vented gas standard consumer
clothes dryers.
Standards cases: ``Roll-up''
equipment to meet potential
efficiency level.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit Annual weighted average values are a
function of energy use at each TSL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit..... Annual weighted average values are a
function of cost at each TSL.
Incorporates projection of future
product prices based on historical
data.
Annual Energy Cost per Unit....... Annual weighted average values as a
function of the annual energy
consumption per-unit and energy
prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per Annual values change between
Unit. electromechanical controls and
electronic controls efficiency
level.
Energy Price Trends............... AEO2023 projections (to 2050) and
constant value based on the average
between 2046 and 2050 thereafter.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC A time-series conversion factor
Conversion. based on AEO2023.
Discount Rate..................... 3% and 7%.
Present Year...................... 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Product Efficiency Trends
A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards
cases. Section IV.F.8 of this document describes how DOE developed an
energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which
yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the
considered product classes for the year of anticipated compliance with
an amended or new standard. To project the trend in efficiency absent
amended standards for consumer clothes dryers over the entire shipments
projection period, DOE used an annual 0.47-percent and 0.02-percent
increase in shipment-weighted efficiency beginning in 2021 for electric
standard and vented gas standard consumer clothes dryers, respectively.
The efficiency for the other product classes remains at their 2021
shipments-weighted efficiency levels. The approach is further described
in chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD.
For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards
are assumed to become effective. In this scenario, the market shares of
products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the standard
under consideration would ``roll-up'' to meet the new standard level,
and the market share of products above the standard would remain
unchanged.
2. National Energy Savings
The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of
national energy consumption of the considered products between each
potential standards case (TSL) and the case with no-new or amended
energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy
consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product
(by vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage).
DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy
consumption for the no-new-standards case and for each higher
efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings
based on-site energy and converted the electricity consumption and
savings to primary energy (i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to
generate site electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from
AEO2023. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year
over the timeframe of the analysis.
Use of higher efficiency products is sometimes associated with a
direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of
the product due to the increase in efficiency. DOE did not find any
data on the rebound effect specific to consumer clothes dryers, so it
did not include a rebound effect in the analysis.
Separate from a direct rebound effect, DOE also assessed the
potential implications of amended standards as it relates to clothes
dryer energy use, namely whether amended standards could result in a
decrease in drying performance that would require consumers to re-run
their drying cycles to achieve satisfactory drying performance. As
discussed in section II.B.2 of this document, DOE's appendix D2 test
procedure includes a maximum FMC threshold (i.e., a dryness level
threshold that much be achieved in order to be considered a valid test
cycle), which ensures that the rated energy consumption of clothes
dryers is representative of consumer expectations for dryness. DOE
testing confirmed that commercially available products achieve this FMC
dryness threshold at each of the efficiency levels considered in this
direct final rule analysis. Consequently, DOE has determined that
clothes dryers that comply with the amended standards will provide
consumer-acceptable levels of dryness corresponding to the rated energy
consumption as measured by appendix D2. In the NES, therefore, DOE
assumed that the amended standards would not result in any increase in
clothes dryer usage, such as that arising from consumers re-running
drying cycles.
In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences,
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and
emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the
approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011, notice, DOE published a
statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination
that EIA's National Energy Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most
appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for
that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain,
multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \76\
that EIA uses to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors
incorporate losses in production and delivery in the case of natural
gas
[[Page 18197]]
(including fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to produce
and deliver the various fuels used by power plants. The approach used
for deriving FFC measures of energy use and emissions is described in
appendix 10B of the direct final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm (last accessed
April 20, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received
regarding the methodology for calculating the national energy savings
that was presented in the August 2022 NOPR. The approach used for this
direct final rule is largely the same approach DOE had used for the
August 2022 NOPR analysis.
In response to the August 2022 NOPR, EEI stated that in the past,
DOE stated potentially using a captured-energy approach when estimating
upstream full-fuel-cycle energy savings; however, EEI noted that in
recent notices and rulemakings, DOE is now overstating these estimates
by using a fossil fuel equivalent for renewable energy, significantly
overstating the upstream savings. (EEI, No. 37 at pp. 45-46)
As previously mentioned, DOE converts electricity consumption and
savings to primary energy and FFC energy using annual conversion
factors derived from the AEO. Traditionally, EIA has used the fossil
fuel equivalency approach to report noncombustible renewables'
contribution to total primary energy. The fossil fuel equivalency
approach applies an annualized weighted average heat rate for fossil
fuel power plants to the electricity generated (in kWh) from
noncombustible renewables. EIA recognizes that using captured energy
(i.e., the net energy available for direct consumption after
transformation of a noncombustible renewable energy into electricity)
and using incident energy (i.e., the mechanical, radiation, or thermal
energy that is measurable as the ``input'' to the device) are possible
approaches for converting renewable electricity to a common measure of
primary energy, but it continues to use the fossil fuel equivalency
approach in the AEO and other reporting of energy statistics. DOE has
used this approach to accounting for primary energy savings from energy
efficiency standards for the entirety of the appliance standards
program.
Whirlpool commented that the lessening of utility and performance
of dryers, including increases to drying cycle times and potentially
increased fabric damage to clothes, may lead to corresponding
compensatory behavioral changes from consumers that may result in lost
energy savings. Whirlpool recommended that DOE's analysis account for
possible negative rebound effects of changes, such that the expected
energy savings from an amended standard may not be fully delivered over
the analyzed period. Whirlpool commented that consumers associate
longer drying times with more potential damage to their clothes and may
choose cycles or options that reduce overall drying time at the expense
of energy consumption. (Whirlpool, No. 53 at p. 6)
DOE has examined the potential impacts on different attributes of
product performance while considering amended standards, as detailed in
section IV.C.1 of this document. As discussed further in section V.B.4
of this document, DOE data indicate that the standards adopted by this
direct final rule will not necessitate any substantive increase in
cycle times compared to typical cycle times currently associated with
baseline consumer clothes dryers and therefore are not expected to have
any negative impacts on fabric care and product wear and tear that
would lead consumers to use more energy consumptive drying cycles.
Moreover, DOE notes that the appendix D2 test procedure, which will be
required to demonstrate compliance with the amended standards
established in this direct final rule, and is currently required for
ENERGY STAR certification, ensures that clothes dryers provide a
consumer-acceptable level of dryness.
Furthermore, as previously discussed, on February 14, 2024, DOE
received a second joint statement from the same group of stakeholders
that submitted the Joint Agreement (including AHAM, of which Whirlpool
is a member) in which the signatories reaffirmed the standards
recommended in the Joint Agreement.\77\ In particular, the letter
states that the stakeholders do not anticipate the recommended
standards will negatively affect features or performance, including
cycle time. In particular, the signatories stated that because the test
procedure that will be used to determine compliance with amended
standards (i.e., appendix D2) requires that dryers meet a threshold for
``final moisture content'' in order to be certified as compliant, this
final moisture content requirement ensures that compliant clothes
dryers will adequately dry clothes. The signatories further noted that
there are more than 400 electric clothes dryer models and nearly 200
gas clothes dryer models that are certified to the current ENERGY STAR
specification, which is equivalent to the recommended standard levels
and is based on appendix D2, and that these models all meet the final
moisture content threshold specified in appendix D2. For further
discussion of consumer clothes dryer performance as it relates to
amended standards, see section V.B.4 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE acknowledges that this conclusion is contrary to its
assumptions in the final rule that it published on December 16, 2020
(``December 2020 Final Rule''). 85 FR 81359. There, DOE assumed that
consumers might need to re-run their clothes washers or dryers through
multiple cycles ``to adequately clean or dry their clothing.'' 85 FR
81365. In this rulemaking, DOE has found no evidence suggesting that
consumers are running their dryers multiple times at TSL 3 (i.e., the
Recommended TSL), which corresponds to the current ENERGY STAR
efficiency level for both electric and gas standard clothes dryers. As
supported by data described in section IV.E of this document, average
consumer usage of electric standard clothes has steadily declined from
301 cycles per year per dryer in the 2005 RECS to 213 cycles per year
per dryer in the 2020 RECS, and vented gas standard clothes dryer usage
has declined from 292 cycles in the 2005 RECS to 213 cycles in the 2020
RECS, while the average household size has remained essentially
unchanged (average 3 household members) during the same period. This
shows a significant downward trend in the average number of cycles run
on each consumer clothes dryer over the past 15 years, even after the
implementation of the current amended standard in 2015. These data
indicate that amended energy conservation standards have not resulted
in consumers increasing dryer usage due to amended standards for
consumer clothes dryers.
Given that there is no evidence of any previous consumer clothes
dryer standard increasing drying cycles per year, and in fact, instead
cycles per year have decreased over time through multiple standards,
DOE determines that a standard at the Recommended TSL would not be
expected to lead consumers to increase their use of consumer clothes
dryers.
3. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs),
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and
savings. DOE
[[Page 18198]]
calculates net savings each year as the difference between the no-new-
standards case and each standards case in terms of total savings in
operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. DOE
calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product
shipped during the projection period.
As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this document, DOE developed
consumer clothes dryer price trends based on historical PPI data. DOE
applied the same trends to project prices for each product class at
each considered efficiency level. By 2057, which is the end date of the
projection period for the Recommended TSL detailed in Joint Agreement,
the average consumer clothes dryer (real) price is projected to drop 18
percent relative to 2022. DOE's projection of product prices is
described in appendix 10C of the direct final rule TSD.
To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend
estimates, DOE investigated the impact of different product price
projections on the consumer NPV for the considered TSLs for consumer
clothes dryers. In addition to the default price trend, DOE considered
two product price sensitivity cases: (1) a high-price-decline case
based on the combined price index from 1980 to 2022 \78\ and (2) a
constant price trend at the 2022 value. The derivation of these price
trends and the results of these sensitivity cases are described in
appendix 10C of the direct final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ DOE combined PPI data of ``household laundry equipment''
from 1948 to 2016 and PPI data of ``major household appliance:
primary products'' from 2016 to 2022 into one time-series price
index to project future price for consumer clothes dryers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy cost savings are calculated using the estimated energy
savings in each year and the projected price of the appropriate form of
energy. To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the
average national energy prices by the projection of annual national-
average residential energy price changes in the Reference case from
AEO2023, which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after
2050, the 2046-2050 average was used for all years. As part of the NIA,
DOE also analyzed scenarios that used inputs from variants of the
AEO2023 Reference case that have lower and higher economic growth.
Those cases have lower and higher energy price trends compared to the
Reference case. NIA results based on these cases are presented in
appendix 10D of the direct final rule TSD.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this
direct final rule, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using
both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these
discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the OMB to
Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.\79\ The
discount rates for the determination of NPV are in contrast to the
discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are designed to reflect
a consumer's perspective. The 7-percent real value is an estimate of
the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S.
economy. The 3-percent real value represents the ``social rate of time
preference,'' which is the rate at which society discounts future
consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/ (last accessed April 20, 2023).
DOE used the prior version of Circular A-4 (2003) as a result of the
effective date of the new version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy
conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately
affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a
subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such
disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups
of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular
consumers from alternative standard levels. For this direct final rule,
DOE analyzed the impacts of the considered standard levels on two
subgroups: (1) low-income households and (2) senior-only households.
The analysis used subsets of the 2020 RECS sample composed of
households that meet the criteria for the considered subgroups. DOE
used the LCC and PBP spreadsheet model to estimate the impacts of the
considered efficiency levels on these subgroups. Chapter 11 in the
direct final rule TSD describes the consumer subgroup analysis.
For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it received
regarding the consumer subgroup analysis that were submitted in
response to the August 2022 NOPR. DOE notes that although several of
the comments discussed below are from AHAM, as previously discussed, on
February 14, 2024, DOE received a second joint statement from the same
group of stakeholders that submitted the Joint Agreement (including
AHAM) in which the signatories reaffirmed the standards recommended in
the Joint Agreement.\80\ In particular, the letter states that ``the
recommended standards represent the maximum levels of efficiency that
are technologically feasible and economically justified.'' (emphasis
added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the August 2022 NOPR, AHAM stated that in a recent
consumer study conducted by Bellomy Research for AHAM, low-income
households were at a disadvantage when purchasing or replacing a
laundry appliance, with many households indicating that they would have
to make financial sacrifices in other areas of their lives to
accommodate purchasing a dryer. AHAM stated that over 90 percent of
low-income households cited cost as the most important factor when
deciding to purchase a dryer, and nearly 75 percent of low-income
households indicated they would not be willing to pay around $100 more
for a more efficient appliance at the time of purchase to save
approximately $50-$150 in energy costs over the lifetime of that
appliance. AHAM stated that one in four low-income households indicated
they would delay a replacement purchase if their laundry appliance
stopped working, and in cases of replacement, they would replace it
with another entry-level/value-tier model. Additionally, AHAM stated
that over half of low-income households indicated they would turn to
purchasing a used dryer or apply for assistance. (AHAM, No. 46 at pp.
6-7). AHAM stated that standards that result in increased prices for
entry-level appliances or that price some consumers out of the clothes
dryer market by eliminating technology options that allow manufacturers
to produce entry-level models (e.g., electromechanical controls) deepen
inequity for underserved communities. According to AHAM, if low-income
consumers do not have equitable access, they may forego dryer ownership
and use a laundromat with lost time savings and additional operating
costs, rely on expensive financing options, or buy an older and
possibly less efficient used dryer, thus reducing overall savings
potential. (AHAM, No. 46 at pp. 5-6, 8)
AGA and APGA supported AHAM's comments on the disproportionate
effect more stringent standards could have on low-income consumers.
(AGA et al., No. 47 at p. 4)
Whirlpool stated that low-income consumers may not be able to
purchase more efficient dryers due to the
[[Page 18199]]
significant cost increase and their inability to pay for very large
emergency purchases over $500. Whirlpool stated that while there may be
some level of life-cycle cost savings from proposed standards,
consumers who can no longer afford an entry-level dryer may never
realize these savings. Whirlpool stated that purchase price increases
driven by DOE's proposed standards may drive undesirable consumer
behavior, including repairing the old dryer or purchasing a used dryer,
effectively keeping older and less efficient appliances on the grid.
Whirlpool requested that DOE ensure new appliances remain as affordable
to low-income consumers as possible. (Whirlpool, No. 53 at pp. 7-8)
NYSERDA stated that amended standards would significantly improve
energy outcomes for low-income households and not create additional
burdens. NYSERDA stated that in New York, there is a relatively even
split between owner-occupied and rented homes, with a significant
number of rental properties, especially in new construction, having in-
unit consumer clothes dryers. NYSERDA commented that for individual
renters who are not responsible for the purchase of their clothes dryer
but who are responsible for paying their utility bills, amended
standards will provide utility bill savings without incurring direct
equipment costs. (NYSERDA, No. 48 at p. 2)
According to the 2020 RECS clothes dryer sample, approximately 47
percent of low-income households who have a dryer are renters. In most
cases, the property owner would purchase a new dryer. While the owner
might seek to collect some of this cost in rent, the ability to do so
is constrained by lease agreements and larger market forces that
influence rent levels in particular locations. Thus, it is reasonable
to conclude that renters would see a significant net benefit from a
higher efficiency dryer, and this is seen in the results of DOE's
analysis (see section V.B.1.b of this document for results of the
consumer subgroup analysis). Additionally, for this direct final rule,
DOE implemented a scenario assuming that landlords would pass some of
the incremental clothes dryer costs to renters in the LCC analysis. The
results indicate that this scenario would not impact DOE's decision on
adopting the amended standards. For details of the sensitivity results,
see appendix 11A of the direct final rule TSD.
In DOE's analysis, approximately 53 percent of low-income
households who have a dryer are homeowners, who would be responsible
for purchasing a new dryer. Given that the average incremental increase
in price for a dryer meeting the adopted standards (relative to the
baseline model that reflects current entry-level products) is $27, DOE
believes it is reasonable to conclude that most low-income homeowners
who could afford to purchase a new dryer under the current standard
could also afford to purchase a dryer that meets the new standard,
particularly in the absence of data indicating otherwise. Furthermore,
DOE's analysis found that for the largest product class (i.e., electric
standard), less than 1 percent of low-income households would
experience a net cost under the adopted standard, but the majority
would see a net benefit (see section V.B.1.b of this document for
results of the consumer subgroup analysis).
In total, DOE's analysis estimated that 45 percent of low-income
households who have a dryer would experience a net benefit and 54
percent of low-income households who have a dryer would have no impact
under the adopted standard.
AHAM comment in response to the August 2022 NOPR that low-income
consumers might lose equitable access to on-site dryer usage because of
the amended standards did not include supporting data so DOE was unable
to fully evaluate the assertion. Nevertheless, DOE's shipments analysis
takes into account the market impact under a standards case. For this
direct final rule, DOE has implemented scenarios in which affected
consumers would either repair their clothes dryers or opt to purchase a
used one instead of a new clothes dryer (see section IV.G of this
document).
AHAM recommended that DOE review all available data sources
regarding low-income households and appliances to incorporate into its
low-income analysis, in particular the basis of only differential
discount rates. AHAM commented that DOE's analysis is a very myopic
view of the effects of standards on low-income households, and within
this framework the approach of using average discount rates is
fundamentally flawed in its understanding of the relationship between
disposable income and balance sheet rebalancing. (AHAM, No. 46 at p. 8)
DOE's approach to the low-income consumer subgroup analysis
includes households that do not have assets or debts included in the
SCF. It is likely that a majority of these ``unbanked'' households
primarily rely on cash to complete transactions and as a form of
savings, which is included in the distribution of discount rates
associated with low-income consumers. Consumers that rely entirely on
cash are assigned a discount rate of 0 percent, as there is no lost
opportunity cost from alternative noncash assets or debts. For
households that utilize nontraditional, nonbank financing, DOE's
methodology includes a distribution of high discount rates (i.e., >10%
percent), which are representative of the opportunity cost associated
with nonbank lines of credit. Therefore, DOE determined that this
comprehensive approach enables a fair assessment of discount rates for
low-income consumers who have different financial situations.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of amended
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of consumer clothes
dryers and to estimate the potential impacts of such standards on
direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both
quantitative and qualitative aspects and includes analyses of projected
industry cash flows, the INPV, investments in research and development
(``R&D'') and manufacturing capital, and domestic manufacturing
employment. Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how amended energy
conservation standards might affect manufacturing employment, capacity,
and competition, as well as how standards contribute to overall
regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA serves to identify any
disproportionate impacts on manufacturer subgroups, including small
business manufacturers.
The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the GRIM, an
industry cash flow model with inputs specific to this rulemaking. The
key GRIM inputs include data on the industry cost structure, unit
production costs, product shipments, manufacturer markups, and
investments in R&D and manufacturing capital required to produce
compliant products. The key GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is the sum
of industry annual cash flows over the analysis period, discounted
using the industry-weighted average cost of capital, and the impact on
domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses standard accounting
principles to estimate the impacts of more stringent energy
conservation standards on a given industry by comparing changes in INPV
and domestic manufacturing employment between a no-new-standards case
and the various standards cases. To capture
[[Page 18200]]
the uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing strategies following
amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible impacts under
different markup scenarios.
The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer
characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such
factors as a potential standard's impact on manufacturing capacity,
competition within the industry, the cumulative impact of other DOE and
non-DOE regulations, and impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The
complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase
1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the consumer clothes dryer
manufacturing industry based on the market and technology assessment,
preliminary manufacturer interviews, and publicly available
information. This included a top-down analysis of consumer clothes
dryer manufacturers that DOE used to derive preliminary financial
inputs for the GRIM (e.g., revenues; materials, labor, overhead, and
depreciation expenses; selling, general, and administrative expenses
(``SG&A''); and R&D expenses). DOE also used public sources of
information to further calibrate its initial characterization of the
consumer clothes dryer manufacturing industry, including company
filings of form 10-K from the SEC,\81\ corporate annual reports, the
U.S. Census Bureau's Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity
Utilization,\82\ the U.S. Census Bureau's Annual Survey of Manufactures
(``ASM''),\83\ and reports from Dun & Bradstreet.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Company Filings.
Available at www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html. (Last
accessed June 6, 2023).
\82\ U.S. Census Bureau. Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity
Utilization. Available at www.census.gov/programs-surveys/qpc/data/tables.html (last accessed June 1, 2023).
\83\ U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures.
Available at www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/data/tables.html
(last accessed June 1, 2023).
\84\ The Dun & Bradstreet subscription login is available at
app.dnbhoovers.com (last accessed June 8, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash-flow
analysis to quantify the potential impacts of amended energy
conservation standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a
series of annual cash flows starting with the announcement of the
standard and extending over a 30-year period following the compliance
date of the standard. These factors include annual expected revenues,
costs of sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures.
In general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash
flow in three distinct ways: (1) creating a need for increased
investment, (2) raising production costs per-unit, and (3) altering
revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes.
In addition, during Phase 2, DOE developed interview guides to
distribute to manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers in order to
develop other key GRIM inputs, including product and capital conversion
costs, and to gather additional information on the anticipated effects
of energy conservation standards on revenues, direct employment,
capital assets, industry competitiveness, and subgroup impacts.
In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE conducted structured, detailed
interviews with representative manufacturers. During these interviews,
DOE discussed engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial
topics to validate assumptions used in the GRIM and to identify key
issues or concerns. As part of Phase 3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of
manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by amended
standards or that may not be accurately represented by the average cost
assumptions used to develop the industry cash flow analysis. Such
manufacturer subgroups may include small business manufacturers, low-
volume manufacturers, niche players, and/or manufacturers exhibiting a
cost structure that largely differs from the industry average. DOE
identified one subgroup for a separate impact analysis: small business
manufacturers. The small business subgroup is discussed in chapter 12
of the direct final rule TSD.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to
amended standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. The
GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash-flow analysis that
incorporates manufacturer costs, manufacturer markups, shipments, and
industry financial information as inputs. The GRIM models changes in
costs, distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins
that could result from an amended energy conservation standard. The
GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash
flows, beginning in 2024 (the base year of the analysis) and continuing
30 years from the analyzed compliance year.\85\ DOE calculated INPVs by
summing the stream of annual discounted cash flows during this period.
For manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers, DOE used a real discount
rate of 7.5 percent, which was derived from industry financials and
then modified according to feedback received during manufacturer
interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ For the no-new-standards case and all TSLs except the
Recommended TSL (i.e., TSL 3), the analysis period ranges from 2024-
2056. For the Recommended TSL, the analysis period ranges from 2024-
2057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles
and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each
standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards
case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the
amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers. As discussed
previously, DOE developed the critical GRIM inputs using a number of
sources, including publicly available data, results of the engineering
analysis and shipments analysis, and information gathered from industry
stakeholders during the course of manufacturer interviews. The GRIM
results are presented in section V.B.2 of this document. Additional
details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other financial
parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
Manufacturing more efficient products is typically more expensive
than manufacturing baseline products due to the use of more complex
components, which are typically more costly than baseline components.
The changes in MPCs of covered products can affect the revenues, gross
margins, and cash flow of the industry. DOE models the relationship
between efficiency and MPCs as a part of its engineering analysis. For
a complete description of the MPCs, see section IV.C of this document
and chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.
b. Shipments Projections
The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by
efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time
can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the
GRIM uses the NIA's annual shipment projections derived from the
shipments analysis from the base year (2024) to the end year of the
analysis period (30 years from the analyzed compliance date \86\). See
section IV.G of
[[Page 18201]]
this document and chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD for additional
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs
Amended energy conservation standards could cause manufacturers to
incur conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product
designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level of conversion-related
expenditures that would be needed to comply with each considered
efficiency level in each product class. For the MIA, DOE classified
these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) capital conversion
costs and (2) product conversion costs. Capital conversion costs are
investments in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or
change existing production facilities such that new compliant product
designs can be fabricated and assembled. Product conversion costs are
investments in research, development, testing, marketing, and other
non-capitalized costs necessary to make product designs comply with
amended energy conservation standards.
DOE relied on manufacturer feedback to evaluate the level of
capital and product conversion costs manufacturers would likely incur
at the various TSLs. During confidential interviews, DOE asked
manufacturers to estimate the capital conversion costs (e.g., changes
in production processes, equipment, and tooling) to meet the various
efficiency levels. DOE also asked manufacturers to estimate the
redesign effort and engineering resources required at various
efficiency levels to quantify the product conversion costs. Based on
manufacturer feedback, DOE also estimated ``re-flooring'' costs
associated with replacing obsolete display models in big-box stores
(e.g., Lowe's, Home Depot, Best Buy) due to higher standards. Some
manufacturers stated that with a new product release, big-box retailers
discount outdated display models, and manufacturers share any losses
associated with discounting the retail price. The estimated re-flooring
costs for each efficiency level were incorporated into the product
conversion cost estimates, as DOE modeled the re-flooring costs as a
marketing expense.
DOE reviewed the DOE CCD,\87\ U.S. market share estimates, and
company characteristics to scale the company-specific conversion cost
estimates to levels that represent the overall industry. First, DOE
used data from its CCD,\88\ the ENERGY STAR-qualified product
database,\89\ and the California Energy Commission database \90\ to
identify original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') of the covered
products. Next, DOE assessed each OEM's U.S. market share and product
profile (e.g., estimated sales by product class and efficiency) for
consumer clothes dryers. Finally, DOE estimated industry-level
conversion cost estimates by scaling feedback from OEMs based on a
combination of product offerings and U.S. market share estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification
Database is available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data
(last accessed April 28, 2023).
\88\ Id.
\89\ ENERGY STAR Product Finder data set, available at
www.energystar.gov/productfinder (last accessed April 28, 2023).
\90\ California Energy Commission Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System, available at
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx
(last accessed April 28, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE adjusted the conversion cost estimates developed in support of
the August 2022 NOPR to 2022$ for this analysis. DOE also estimated
industry costs associated with appendix D2, as finalized in the October
2021 TP Final Rule. 86 FR 56608.
In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur
between the year of publication of the final rule and the year by which
manufacturers must comply with the new standard. The conversion cost
figures used in the GRIM can be found in section V.B.2.a of this
document. For additional information on the estimated capital and
product conversion costs, see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor,
materials, and overhead estimated in DOE's MPCs) and all non-production
costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. To calculate
the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied manufacturer markups to the MPCs
estimated in the engineering analysis for each product class and
efficiency level. Modifying these markups in the standards case yields
different sets of impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled
two standards-case scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding the
potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers
following the implementation of amended energy conservation standards:
(1) a preservation of gross margin percentage scenario and (2) a
preservation-of-operating profit scenario. These scenarios lead to
different manufacturer markup values that, when applied to the MPCs,
result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts.
Under the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, DOE
applied a single uniform ``gross margin percentage'' across all
efficiency levels, which assumes that manufacturers would be able to
maintain the same amount of profit as a percentage of revenues at all
efficiency levels within a product class. As manufacturer production
costs increase with efficiency, this scenario implies that the per-unit
dollar profit will increase. DOE assumed a gross margin percentage of
approximately 21 percent for all product classes.\91\ Manufacturers
tend to believe it is optimistic to assume that they would be able to
maintain the same gross margin percentage as their production costs
increase, particularly for minimally efficient products. Therefore,
this scenario represents a high bound to industry profitability under
an amended energy conservation standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ The gross margin percentage of 21 percent is based on a
manufacturer markup of 1.26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, DOE modeled a
situation in which manufacturers are not able to increase per-unit
operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production
costs. DOE implemented this scenario in the GRIM by lowering the
manufacturer markups at each TSL to yield approximately the same
earnings before interest and taxes in the standards case as in the no-
new-standards case in the year after the compliance date of the amended
standards. The implicit assumption behind this scenario is that the
industry can only maintain its operating profit in absolute dollars
after the standard.
A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two
manufacturer markup scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a of this
document.
3. Discussion of MIA Comments
For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received
regarding its manufacturer impact analysis presented in the August 2022
NOPR. The approach used for this direct final rule is largely the same
as the approach DOE had used for the August 2022 NOPR analysis.
AHAM requested that DOE confirm it has fully included all costs
that manufacturers would face in compliance to assure that the
financial effects on manufacturers are not excessive. (AHAM, No. 46 at
p. 11)
As discussed in section IV.J.2.c of this document, DOE primarily
relied on manufacturer feedback to estimate the
[[Page 18202]]
capital and product conversion costs that manufacturers would likely
incur at the various analyzed efficiency levels. DOE did not receive
additional feedback about its conversion cost estimates published in
the August 2022 NOPR. Therefore, DOE did not significantly alter its
conversion cost methodology in evaluating this direct final rule. DOE
adjusted the conversion cost estimates developed in support of the NOPR
to 2022$ for this analysis. Additionally, for this direct final rule,
DOE updated its product conversion cost estimates to incorporate the
estimated industry costs associated with rerating basic models in
accordance with appendix D2. 86 FR 56608.
AHAM stated that if DOE is to consider amending energy conservation
standards, it must incorporate into its analysis the challenges
manufacturers are facing regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and increased
tariffs. AHAM commented that DOE cannot simply rely on its previous
analysis regarding component costs. (AHAM, No. 46 at pp. 13-14)
For this direct final rule, DOE updated its engineering analysis to
incorporate up-to-date cost estimates. Increased costs associated with
recent supply chain challenges stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic have
been incorporated into the cost analysis by way of 5-year moving
averages for materials and the most up-to-date costs for purchased
parts.
AHAM stated that there will be an additional design cycle for
either or both clothes washers and clothes dryers if the effective
dates for the two products are out of sync. AHAM stated that the
existing DOE analysis does not capture this situation, which creates a
significant technical and financial burden on manufacturers. (AHAM, No.
46 at p. 11) AHAM stated its support for the ongoing Peer Review
process regarding cumulative regulatory burden and stated that DOE
should not discount the time and resources needed to evaluate and
respond to all proposed test procedures and energy conservation
standards for multiple products proposed over a short period. AHAM
commented that when these rulemakings occur simultaneously, the
cumulative burden increases dramatically. (AHAM, No. 46 at p. 13)
DOE notes that it is adopting the Recommended TSL in this direct
final rule. The Joint Agreement included recommendations for other
appliance standards 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
recommendation of standards, to be adopted in its entirety. (Joint
Agreement, No. 55 at p. 3) The Joint Agreement specifies a compliance
date of March 1, 2028 for both residential clothes washers and consumer
clothes dryers. Therefore, DOE did not adjust its conversion cost
estimates to account for the time and investments associated with an
additional design cycle as DOE assumed the compliance dates for
residential clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers would align.
AHAM urged DOE to incorporate the financial results of the current
cumulative regulatory burden analysis directly into the MIA and stated
that this is achievable by adding the combined costs of complying with
multiple regulations into the Product Conversion Costs in the GRIM
model and including the costs to manufacturers of responding to and
monitoring regulations. (AHAM, No. 46 at p. 11) AHAM requested that DOE
explicitly recognize the industry effects of multiple regulations
issued within a short period of time on the same product. AHAM stated
that the MIA inherently assumes the regulation analyzed in the INPV
analysis is a single event (investment) and that all other cash flows
are unaffected by this regulation. In addition, AHAM stated that when
there are multiple regulations on the same product within the 6-year
lock-in period, the second regulation violates the recoupment
assumption inherent in the first one, which is not considered by the
GRIM model. AHAM stated that DOE could resolve this by conducting a
consolidated analysis for multiple regulations starting from the time
of the first regulation or by incorporating a value reduction factor in
the first post-regulation year of the analysis that subtracts the value
lost from the remaining years of the previous regulation. (Id. at pp.
11-12)
If DOE were to combine the conversion costs from multiple
regulations, as requested, it would be appropriate to match the
combined conversion costs with the combined revenues of the regulated
products. DOE is concerned that combined results would make it more
difficult to discern the direct impact of the amended standard on
covered manufacturers, particularly for rulemakings where there is only
partial overlap of manufacturers. Conversion costs would be spread over
a larger revenue base and result in less severe INPV impacts when
evaluated on a percent change basis. Furthermore, DOE is not aware of
other Federal, product-specific regulations on consumer clothes dryers
that would go into effect 3 years before or after the 2028 compliance
date. DOE understands that if the effective dates of the consumer
clothes dryer and residential clothes washer amended standards were
misaligned, there could be additional development and marketing costs
associated with aligning the design cycles of these products, as
clothes dryers and clothes washers are typically designed and sold in
pairs. However, DOE did not account for any additional development cost
associated with this potential regulatory burden, as DOE modeled the
recommended March 1, 2028 compliance date from the Joint Agreement for
both rulemakings.
AHAM urged DOE to weigh in against regulatory misalignment with
Natural Resources Canada (``NRCan'') through the United States-Canada
Regulatory Cooperation Council work plan on energy efficiency and under
the Memorandum of Understanding (``MOU'') on energy cooperation. AHAM
also urged DOE to account for the burden of any misalignment in its
analysis. According to AHAM, it is critical that amended standards are
coordinated with NRCan, in both substance and timing, to maintain a
consistent United States-Canadian market for home appliances. (AHAM,
No. 46 at p. 13)
As part of the analysis underlying the energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers, DOE considers and reviews
standards programs from other regions. As part of this effort, DOE
considers regulatory actions undertaken by NRCan and notes that per a
notice published on April 2, 2022 in the Canada Gazette, Part I,\92\
NRCan is currently proceeding with pre-consultations to align the
energy efficiency and testing standard for five home appliance
categories including consumer clothes dryer with the outcomes of the
current DOE regulatory efforts. Further detail regarding DOE's review
of the NRCan regulatory actions and those in other regions are
discussed in chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ The notice published in the Canada Gazette, Part I can be
found at: gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2022/2022-04-02/html/notice-avis-eng.html#ne4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Emissions Analysis
The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first
component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation
standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg.
The second component estimates the
[[Page 18203]]
impacts of potential standards on emissions of two additional
greenhouse gases, CH4 and N2O, as well as the
reductions in emissions of other gases due to ``upstream'' activities
in the fuel production chain. These upstream activities comprise
extraction, processing, and transporting fuels to the site of
combustion.
The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO2,
NOX, SO2, and Hg uses emissions intended to
represent the marginal impacts of the change in electricity consumption
associated with amended or new standards. The methodology is based on
results published for the AEO, including a set of side cases that
implement a variety of efficiency-related policies. The methodology is
described in appendix 13A in the direct final rule TSD. The analysis
presented in this notice uses projections from AEO2023. Power sector
emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel combustion are
estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories
published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_apr2021.pdf (last accessed April 6,
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The on-site operation of consumer clothes dryers involves
combustion of fossil fuels and results in emissions of CO2,
NOX, SO2, CH4, and N2O
where these products are used. Site emissions of these gases were
estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories and,
for NOX and SO2, emissions intensity factors from
an EPA publication.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. External Combustion
Sources. In Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42.
Fifth Edition. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Chapter
1. Available at www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors#Proposed/
(last accessed May 26, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel
combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels,
and ``fugitive'' emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of
CH4 and CO2, are estimated based on the
methodology described in chapter 15 of the direct final rule TSD.
The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical
units per MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. For power sector
emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by
sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the
energy savings calculated in the national impact analysis.
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects
the AEO, which incorporates the projected impacts of existing air
quality regulations on emissions. AEO2023 generally represents current
legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government
actions, that were in place at the time of preparation of AEO2023,
including the emissions control programs discussed in the following
paragraphs.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ For further information, see the Assumptions to AEO2023
report that sets forth the major assumptions used to generate the
projections in the Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed May 26, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units
(``EGUs'') are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-
trade programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions
cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and
the District of Columbia (``DC''). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.)
SO2 emissions from numerous States in the eastern half of
the United States are also limited under the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (``CSAPR''). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these
States to reduce certain emissions, including annual SO2
emissions, and went into effect as of January 1, 2015.\96\ AEO2023
incorporates implementation of CSAPR, including the update to the CSAPR
ozone season program emission budgets and target dates issued in 2016.
81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). Compliance with CSAPR is flexible among
EGUs and is enforced through the use of tradable emissions allowances.
Under existing EPA regulations, for states subject to SO2
emissions limits under CSAPR, any excess SO2 emissions
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the
adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting
increases in SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ CSAPR requires states to address annual emissions of
SO2 and NOX, precursors to the formation of
fine particulate matter (``PM2.5'') pollution, in order
to address the interstate transport of pollution with respect to the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (``NAAQS''). CSAPR also requires certain states to address
the ozone season (May-September) emissions of NOX, a
precursor to the formation of ozone pollution, in order to address
the interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 1997
ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). EPA subsequently issued a
supplemental rule that included an additional five states in the
CSAPR ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011)
(Supplemental Rule), and EPA issued the CSAPR Update for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, beginning in 2016, SO2 emissions began to fall
as a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (``MATS'') for
power plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). The direct final rule
establishes power plant emission standards for mercury, acid gases, and
non-mercury metallic toxic pollutants. In order to continue operating,
coal plants must have either flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent
injection systems installed. Both technologies, which are used to
reduce acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions.
Because of the emissions reductions under the MATS, it is unlikely that
excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from the lower
electricity demand would be needed or used to permit offsetting
increases in SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU.
Therefore, energy conservation standards that decrease electricity
generation will generally reduce SO2 emissions. DOE
estimated SO2 emissions reduction using emissions factors
based on AEO2023.
CSAPR also established limits on NOX emissions for
numerous States in the eastern half of the United States. Energy
conservation standards would have little effect on NOX
emissions in those States covered by CSAPR emissions limits if excess
NOX emissions allowances resulting from the lower
electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases in
NOX emissions from other EGUs. In such case, NOX
emissions would remain near the limit even if electricity generation
goes down. Depending on the configuration of the power sector in the
different regions and the need for allowances, however, NOX
emissions might not remain at the limit in the case of lower
electricity demand. That would mean that standards might reduce
NOX emissions in covered States. Despite this possibility,
DOE has chosen to be conservative in its analysis and has maintained
the assumption that standards will not reduce NOX emissions
in States covered by CSAPR. Standards would be expected to reduce
NOX emissions in the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE used
AEO2023 data to derive NOX emissions factors for the group
of States not covered by CSAPR.
The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation
standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE
estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on
AEO2023, which incorporates the MATS.
EEI stated that the emissions estimates are significantly
overstated
[[Page 18204]]
with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (``IRA''). EEI
recommended that DOE update the analysis to account for the IRA and all
the impacts in terms of the significantly increased use of renewable
electricity as well as the increase in the number of utilities that
have stated zero carbon electricity can be attained within the next 15
to 25 years. (EEI, No. 37 at pp. 54-55)
As previously stated, for the direct final rule DOE used the
AEO2023 Reference case, which includes the IRA, to represent the
electric power sector over the coming decades. The AEO2023 Reference
case reflects EIA's view of the most likely uptake of IRA tax credits,
and it assumes qualified technologies receive the base tax credit and
some bonus credits. The IRA provisions, in combination with other
policies and market forces, push wind and solar to 56 percent of
electricity generation by 2050. DOE estimated emissions reductions from
the adopted standards relative to this case.
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
As part of the development of this direct final rule, for the
purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866,
DOE considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced
emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O,
NOX, and SO2 that are expected to result from
each of the TSLs considered. In order to make this calculation
analogous to the calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE
considered the reduced emissions expected to result over the lifetime
of products shipped in the projection period for each TSL. This section
summarizes the basis for the values used for monetizing the emissions
benefits and presents the values considered in this direct final rule.
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.
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions
of CO2, CH4, and N2O by using a
measure of the SC of each pollutant (e.g., social costs of greenhouse
gases ``SC-CO2''). These estimates represent the monetary
value '' of the net harm to society associated with a marginal increase
in emissions of these pollutants in a given year, or the benefit of
avoiding that increase. These estimates are intended to include (but
are not limited to) climate change-related changes in net agricultural
productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk,
disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental
migration, and the value of ecosystem services.
DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate
benefits as recommended by applicable Executive orders, and DOE would
reach the same conclusion presented in this rulemaking in the absence
of the social cost of greenhouse gases. That is, the SC-CO2,
whether measured using the February 2021 interim estimates presented by
the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases or
by another means, did not affect the rule ultimately proposed by DOE.
DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO2,
CH4, and N2O reductions using SC-GHG values that
were based on the interim values 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. The SC-GHG is the monetary value of the net harm to society
associated with a marginal increase in emissions in a given year, or
the benefit of avoiding that increase. In principle, the SC-GHG
includes the value of all climate change impacts, including (but not
limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health
effects, property damage from increased flood risk and natural
disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict,
environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. The SC-
GHG therefore reflects the societal value of reducing emissions of the
gas in question by one metric ton. The SC-GHG is the theoretically
appropriate value to use in conducting benefit-cost analyses of
policies that affect CO2, N2O, and CH4
emissions. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees that the interim SC-GHG estimates
represent the most appropriate estimate of the SC-GHG for this rule,
which was developed using the interim estimates. DOE continues to
evaluate recent developments in the scientific literature, including
the updated SC-GHG estimates published by the EPA in December 2023
within their rulemaking on oil and natural gas sector sources.\97\ For
this rulemaking, DOE used these updated SC-GHG values to conduct a
sensitivity analysis of the value of GHG emissions reductions
associated with alternative standards for clothes dryers (see section
IV.L.1.c of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Available at www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/eo12866_oil-and-gas-nsps-eg-climate-review-2060-av16-final-rule-20231130.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SC-GHG estimates presented here were developed over many years,
using peer-reviewed methodologies, a transparent process, the best
science available at the time of that process, and input from the
public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, which included DOE and other
executive branch agencies and offices, was established to ensure that
agencies were using the best available science and to promote
consistency in the SC-CO2 values used across agencies. The
IWG published SC-CO2 estimates in 2010 that were developed
from an ensemble of three widely cited integrated assessment models
(``IAMs'') that estimate global climate damages using highly aggregated
representations of climate processes and the global economy combined
into a single modeling framework. The three IAMs were run using a
common set of input assumptions in each model for future population,
economic, and CO2 emissions growth, as well as equilibrium
climate sensitivity--a measure of the globally averaged temperature
response to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These
estimates were updated in 2013 based on new versions of each IAM. In
August 2016 the IWG published estimates of the social cost of methane
(``SC-CH4'') and nitrous oxide (``SC-N2O'') using
methodologies that are consistent with the methodology underlying the
SC-CO2 estimates. The modeling approach that extends the IWG
SC-CO2 methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has undergone
multiple stages of peer review. The SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates were developed by Marten et al.\98\ and
underwent a standard double-blind peer review process prior to journal
publication. In 2015, as part of the response to public comments
received following a 2013 solicitation for comments on the SC-
CO2 estimates, the IWG announced a National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine review of the SC-CO2
estimates to offer advice on how to approach future updates to ensure
that the estimates continue to reflect the best available science and
methodologies. In January 2017, the National Academies released their
final report, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation
[[Page 18205]]
of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and recommended specific criteria
for future updates to the SC-CO2 estimates, a modeling
framework to satisfy the specified criteria, and both near-term updates
and longer-term research needs pertaining to various components of the
estimation process (National Academies, 2017).\99\ Shortly thereafter,
in March 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order (``E.O.'') 13783,
which disbanded the IWG, withdrew the previous TSDs, and directed
agencies to ensure SC-CO2 estimates used in regulatory
analyses are consistent with the guidance contained in OMB's Circular
A-4,\100\ ``including with respect to the consideration of domestic
versus international impacts and the consideration of appropriate
discount rates'' (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). Benefit-cost analyses
following E.O. 13783 used SC-GHG estimates that attempted to focus on
the U.S.-specific share of climate change damages as estimated by the
models and were calculated using two discount rates recommended by
Circular A-4, 3 percent and 7 percent. All other methodological
decisions and model versions used in SC-GHG calculations remained the
same as those used by the IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. Newbold,
and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and N2O
mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S. Government's SC-
CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 2015. 15(2): pp. 272-298.
\99\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of
Carbon Dioxide. 2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
\100\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/ (last accessed April 20, 2023).
DOE used the prior version of Circular A-4 (2003) as a result of the
effective date of the new version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990,
which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S.
Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other
greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the
recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked
with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in Federal
analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of E.O. 13990
that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking
global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in
February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this
rulemaking. E.O. 13990 instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller update
of the SC-GHG estimates by January 2022 that takes into consideration
the advice of the National Academies (2017) and other recent scientific
literature. The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a complete discussion
of the IWG's initial review conducted under E.O. 13990. In particular,
the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to
reflect the full impact of GHG emissions in multiple ways.
First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O.
13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the
welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better
reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of omitted effects
from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens,
assets, and investments located abroad; supply chains, U.S. military
assets and interests abroad, and tourism; and spillover pathways such
as economic and political destabilization and global migration that can
lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and
humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of United
States GHG mitigation activities requires consideration of how those
actions may affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those
international mitigation actions will provide a benefit to United
States citizens and residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect
United States citizens and residents. A wide range of scientific and
economic experts have emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support
for considering global damages of GHG emissions. If the United States
does not consider impacts on other countries, it is difficult to
convince other countries to consider the impacts of their emissions on
the United States. The only way to achieve an efficient allocation of
resources for emissions reduction on a global basis--and so benefit the
United States and its citizens--is for all countries to base their
policies on global estimates of damages. As a member of the IWG
involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees
with this assessment and, therefore, in this direct final rule DOE
centers attention on a global measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the
same as that taken in DOE regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A
robust estimate of climate damages that accrue only to U.S. citizens
and residents does not currently exist in the literature. As explained
in the February 2021 TSD, existing estimates are both incomplete and an
underestimate of total damages that accrue to the citizens and
residents of the U.S. because they do not fully capture the regional
interactions and spillovers previously discussed, nor do they include
all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of
climate change recognized in the climate change literature. As noted in
the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG will continue to review
developments in the literature, including more robust methodologies for
estimating a U.S.-specific SC-GHG value, and explore ways to better
inform the public of the full range of carbon impacts. As a member of
the IWG, DOE will continue to follow developments in the literature
pertaining to this issue.
Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on
capital (7 percent under current OMB Circular A-4 guidance) to discount
the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately
underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of
estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National
Academies (2017) and the economic literature, the IWG continued to
conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically
appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context \101\ and
recommended that discount rate uncertainty and relevant aspects of
intergenerational ethical considerations be accounted for in selecting
future discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United
States Government. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon
for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2010.
Available at www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf (last accessed April 15, 2022); Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. Technical
Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013.
Available at www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technical-update-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact (last accessed April 15, 2022);
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United
States Government. Technical Support Document: Technical Update on
the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866. August 2016. Available at www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf (last
accessed Jan. 18, 2022); Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Addendum to Technical
Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis Under Executive Order 12866: Application of the Methodology
to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of
Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. Available at www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf (last
accessed Jan. 18, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG
are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of
OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the
consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this
assessment and will continue to follow
[[Page 18206]]
developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes
that while OMB Circular A-4, as published in 2003, recommends using 3-
percent and 7-percent discount rates as ``default'' values, Circular A-
4 also reminds agencies that ``different regulations may call for
different emphases in the analysis, depending on the nature and
complexity of the regulatory issues and the sensitivity of the benefit
and cost estimates to the key assumptions.'' On discounting, Circular
A-4 recognizes that ``special ethical considerations arise when
comparing benefits and costs across generations,'' and Circular A-4
acknowledges that analyses may appropriately ``discount future costs
and consumption benefits . . . at a lower rate than for
intragenerational analysis.'' In the 2015 Response to Comments on the
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the
IWG members recognized that ``Circular A-4 is a living document'' and
``the use of 7 percent is not considered appropriate for
intergenerational discounting. There is wide support for this view in
the academic literature, and it is recognized in Circular A-4 itself.''
Thus, DOE concludes that a 7-percent discount rate is not appropriate
to apply to value the social cost of greenhouse gases in the analysis
presented in this document.
To calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits,
DOE uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value
of damages from future GHG emissions for internal consistency. That
approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February
2021 TSD recommends ``to ensure internal consistency--i.e., future
damages from climate change using the SC-GHG at 2.5 percent should be
discounted to the base year of the analysis using the same 2.5 percent
rate.'' DOE has also consulted the National Academies' 2017
recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates can ``be combined in RIAs with
other cost and benefits estimates that may use different discount
rates.'' The National Academies reviewed several options, including
``presenting all discount rate combinations of other costs and benefits
with [SC-GHG] estimates.''
As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February
2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the above assessment and will continue
to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue.
While the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer-
reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it set
the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by the
IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely on
the same models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a range
of discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the
IWG has recommended that agencies revert to the same set of four values
drawn from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount rates as
were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and were subject
to public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the
distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios
(applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values
recommended for use in benefit-cost analyses: an average value
resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5
percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent) plus a fourth value, selected as the
95th percentile of estimates based on a 3-percent discount rate. The
fourth value was included to provide information on potentially higher-
than-expected economic impacts from climate change. As explained in the
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, with which DOE agrees, this update reflects
the immediate need to have an operational SC-GHG for use in regulatory
benefit-cost analyses and other applications that was developed using a
transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and the science
available at the time of that process. Those estimates were subject to
public comment in dozens of proposed rulemakings as well as in a
dedicated public comment period in 2013.
There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with
the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic
understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate
change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent, or
lower.\102\ Second, the IAMs used to produce these interim estimates do
not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic
impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature,
and the science underlying their ``damage functions''--i.e., the core
parts of the IAMs that map global mean temperature changes and other
physical impacts of climate change into economic (both market and
nonmarket) damages--lags behind the most recent research. For example,
limitations include the incomplete treatment of catastrophic and non-
catastrophic impacts in the integrated assessment models, their
incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, the
incomplete way in which interregional and intersectoral linkages are
modeled, uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high
temperatures, and inadequate representation of the relationship between
the discount rate and uncertainty in economic growth over long time
horizons. Likewise, the socioeconomic and emissions scenarios used as
inputs to the models do not reflect new information from the last
decade of scenario generation or the full range of projections. The
modeling limitations do not all work in the same direction in terms of
their influence on the SC-CO2 estimates. However, as
discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the IWG has recommended that, taken
together, the limitations suggest that the interim SC-GHG estimates
used in this direct final rule likely underestimate the damages from
GHG emissions. DOE concurs with this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases (IWG), United States Government. Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates
Under Executive Order 13990. February 2021. Available at
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climate-pollution/ (last accessed May 23, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's derivations of the SC-CO2, SC-N2O, and
SC-CH4 values used for this direct final rule are discussed
in the following sections, and the results of DOE's analyses estimating
the benefits of the reductions in emissions of these GHGs are presented
in section V.B.6 of this document.
a. Social Cost of Carbon
The SC-CO2 values used for this direct final rule were
based on the values developed for the IWG's February 2021 TSD, which
are shown in Table IV.22 in 5-year increments from 2020 to 2050. The
set of annual values that DOE used, which was adapted from estimates
published by EPA,\103\ is presented in appendix 14A of the direct final
rule TSD. These estimates are based on methods, assumptions, and
parameters identical with the 2020-2050 estimates published by the IWG
(which were based on EPA modeling) and include values for 2051 to 2070.
DOE expects additional climate benefits to accrue for any longer-life
consumer clothes dryers after 2070, but a lack of available SC-
CO2 estimates for
[[Page 18207]]
emissions years beyond 2070 prevents DOE from monetizing these
potential benefits in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty
Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis,
Washington, DC, December 2021. Available at nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013ORN.pdf (last accessed Feb. 21, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of capturing the uncertainties involved in regulatory
impact analysis, DOE has determined it is appropriate to include all
four sets of SC-CO2 values, as recommended by the IWG.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses how the
understanding of discounting approaches suggests that discount rates
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate
change may be lower than 3 percent.
Table IV.22--Annual SC-CO2 Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
[2020$ per Metric Ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
---------------------------------------------------------------
5% 3% 2.5% 3%
Year ---------------------------------------------------------------
95th
Average Average Average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................................ 14 51 76 152
2025............................................ 17 56 83 169
2030............................................ 19 62 89 187
2035............................................ 22 67 96 206
2040............................................ 25 73 103 225
2045............................................ 28 79 110 242
2050............................................ 32 85 116 260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for
each year by the SC-CO2 value for that year in each of the
four cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2022$ using the implicit price
deflator for gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of
Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of the stream of
monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases
using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-
CO2 values in each case.
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values used for this
direct final rule were based on the values developed for the February
2021 TSD. Table IV.23 shows the updated sets of SC-CH4 and
SC-N2O estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-
year increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values used
is presented in appendix 14A of the direct final rule TSD. To capture
the uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has
determined it is appropriate to include all four sets of SC-
CH4 and SC-N2O values, as recommended by the IWG.
DOE derived values after 2050 using the approach described above for
the SC-CO2.
Table IV.23.--Annual SC-CH4 and SC-N2O Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
[2020$ per Metric Ton]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC-CH4 SC-N2O
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic Discount rate and statistic
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 5% 3% 2.5% 3%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th 95th
Average Average Average percentile Average Average Average percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................................ 670 1500 2000 3900 5800 18000 27000 48000
2025............................................ 800 1700 2200 4500 6800 21000 30000 54000
2030............................................ 940 2000 2500 5200 7800 23000 33000 60000
2035............................................ 1100 2200 2800 6000 9000 25000 36000 67000
2040............................................ 1300 2500 3100 6700 10000 28000 39000 74000
2045............................................ 1500 2800 3500 7500 12000 30000 42000 81000
2050............................................ 1700 3100 3800 8200 13000 33000 45000 88000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O emissions
reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates for that year in each of the cases. DOE
adjusted the values to 2022$ using the implicit price deflator for
gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE
discounted the values in each of the cases using the specific discount
rate that had been used to obtain the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates in each case.
c. Sensitivity Analysis Using Updated 2023 SC-GHG Estimates
In December 2023 EPA issued a new set of SC-GHG estimates (2023 SC-
GHG) in connection with a final rulemaking under the Clean Air
Act.\105\ For this rulemaking, DOE used these updated 2023 SC-GHG
values to conduct a sensitivity analysis of the value of GHG emissions
reductions associated with alternative standards for consumer clothes
dryers. This sensitivity analysis provides an expanded range of
potential climate benefits associated with amended standards. The final
year of EPA's new the 2023 SC-GHG estimates is 2080; therefore, DOE did
not monetize the climate benefits of GHG emissions reductions occurring
after 2080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ See www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall climate benefits are larger using when using the
higher, updated 2023 SC-GHG estimates, compared to the climate benefits
using the older IWG SC-GHG estimates. However, DOE's conclusion that
the standards are economically justified remains the same
[[Page 18208]]
regardless of which SC-GHG estimates are used.
The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in appendix
14C of the direct final rule TSD.
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
For the direct final rule, DOE estimated the monetized value of
NOX and SO2 emissions reductions from electricity
generation using benefit-per-ton estimates for that sector from the
EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program.\106\ DOE used EPA's values
for PM2.5-related benefits associated with NOX
and SO2 and for ozone-related benefits associated with
NOX for 2025 and 2030, and 2040, calculated with discount
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. DOE used linear interpolation to
define values for the years not given in the 2025 to 2040 period; for
years beyond 2040, the values are held constant. DOE combined the EPA
benefit-per-ton estimates with regional information on electricity
consumption and emissions to define weighted average national values
for NOX and SO2 as a function of sector (see
appendix 14B of the direct final rule TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Estimating the Benefit-per-Ton of Reducing Directly-
Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors and Ozone
Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also estimated the monetized value of NOX and
SO2 emissions reductions from site use of natural gas in
consumer clothes dryers using benefit-per-ton estimates from the EPA's
Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program. Although none of the sectors
covered by EPA refers specifically to residential and commercial
buildings, the sector called ``area sources'' would be a reasonable
proxy for residential and commercial buildings.\107\ The EPA document
provides high and low estimates for 2025 and 2030 at 3- and 7-percent
discount rates.\108\ DOE used the same linear interpolation and
extrapolation as it did with the values for electricity generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ ``Area sources'' represents all emission sources for which
states do not have exact (point) locations in their emissions
inventories. Because exact locations would tend to be associated
with larger sources, ``area sources'' would be fairly representative
of small, dispersed sources like homes and businesses.
\108\ ``Area sources'' are a category in the 2018 document from
EPA but are not used in the 2021 document cited above. See
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-02/documents/sourceapportionmentbpttsd_2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE multiplied the site emissions reduction (in tons) in each year
by the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series using
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as appropriate.
For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received
regarding its monetization emission impact analysis presented in the
August 2022 NOPR. The approach used for this direct final rule is
largely the same as the approach DOE had used for the August 2022 NOPR
analysis.
In response to the August 2022 NOPR, AHAM disagreed with DOE's use
of both the social cost of carbon (``SCC'') and other monetization of
emissions reductions benefits in its analysis of the factors that EPCA
requires DOE to balance in determining the appropriate standard, as
these values are highly subjective and ever-changing. (AHAM, No. 46 at
p. 14)
As stated in section III.E.1.f of this document, DOE maintains that
environmental and public health benefits associated with more efficient
use of energy, including those connected to global climate change, are
important to take into account when considering the need for national
energy conservation, which is one of the factors that EPCA requires DOE
to evaluate in determining whether a potential energy conservation
standard is economically justified. In addition, Executive Order 13563,
which was reaffirmed on January 21, 2021, stated that each agency must,
among other things, ``select, in choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).'' For these reasons, DOE
includes monetized emissions reductions in its evaluation of potential
standard levels. As previously stated, however, DOE would reach the
same conclusion presented in this rulemaking in the absence of the SC-
GHG. At the Recommended TSL, the average LCC savings for all product
classes is positive. In addition, the FFC national energy savings are
significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive using both a
3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Even when measured at the more
conservative discount rate of 7 percent, the NPV of consumer benefits
is over 64 times higher than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss
in INPV.
M. Utility Impact Analysis
The utility impact analysis estimates the changes in installed
electrical capacity and generation projected to result for each
considered TSL. The analysis is based on published output from the NEMS
associated with AEO2023. NEMS produces the AEO Reference case, as well
as a number of side cases that estimate the economy-wide impacts of
changes to energy supply and demand. For the current analysis, impacts
are quantified by comparing the levels of electricity sector
generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption, and emissions in the
AEO2023 Reference case and various side cases. Details of the
methodology are provided in the appendices to chapters 13 and 15 of the
direct final rule TSD.
The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients
that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel
consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a
unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are
multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA
to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or
amended energy conservation standards.
The utility analysis also estimates the impact on gas utilities in
terms of projected changes in natural gas deliveries to consumers for
each TSL.
N. Employment Impact Analysis
DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one
factor in selecting a standard. Employment impacts from new or amended
energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect impacts.
Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of
manufacturers of the products subject to standards, their suppliers,
and related service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect
employment impacts are changes in national employment that occur due to
the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase
and operation of more efficient appliances. Indirect employment impacts
from standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the
national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being
regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on energy, (2)
reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry, (3)
increased consumer spending on the products to which the new standards
apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects of those three
factors throughout the economy.
One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of
Labor Statistics (``BLS''). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of
the number of
[[Page 18209]]
jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different sectors of
the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by
this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures
in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs (both directly and
indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of the economy.\109\
There are many reasons for these differences, including wage
differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital-
intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a
less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-
intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, the BLS
data suggest that net national employment may increase due to shifts in
economic activity resulting from energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ See U.S. Department of Commerce--Bureau of Economic
Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional
Input-Output Modeling System (``RIMS II''). 1997. U.S. Government
Printing Office: Washington, DC. Available at www.osti.gov/biblio/7281092 (last accessed July 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard
levels considered in this direct final rule using an input/output model
of the U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version
4 (``ImSET'').\110\ ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S.
Benchmark National Input-Output'' (``I-O'') model, which was designed
to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving
technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model
having structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among
187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential
building energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and R.W.
Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model
Description and User's Guide. 2015. Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory: Richland, WA. PNNL-24563. Available at www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-24563.pdf (last
accessed April 26, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting
model, and that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment
impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because
ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects
predicted by ImSET may overestimate actual job impacts over the long
run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to generate results
for near-term timeframes (2027-2033) where these uncertainties are
reduced.\111\ For more details on the employment impact analysis, see
chapter 16 of the direct final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ The near-term timeframes for the Recommended TSL are 2028-
2034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
O. Regulatory Impact Analysis
For any regulatory action that the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') within OMB determines is
a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866,
section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866 requires Federal agencies to provide
an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of costs and benefits
of potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the
planned regulation, identified by the agencies or the public (including
improving the current regulation and reasonably viable non-regulatory
actions), and an explanation why the planned regulatory action is
preferable to the identified potential alternatives. 58 FR 51735,
51741. As discussed further in section VI.A of this document, OIRA has
determined that this final regulatory action constitutes a
``significant regulatory action'' within the scope of section 3(f)(1)
of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094. Accordingly, DOE conducted a
regulatory impact analysis (``RIA'') for this direct final rule.
As part of the RIA, DOE identifies major alternatives to standards
that represent feasible policy options to reduce the energy and water
consumption of the covered product. DOE evaluates each alternative in
terms of its ability to achieve significant energy and water savings at
a reasonable cost, and compares the effectiveness of each alternative
to the effectiveness of the finalized standard. DOE recognizes that
voluntary or other non-regulatory efforts by manufacturers, utilities,
and other interested parties can substantially affect energy and water
efficiency or reduce energy and water consumption. DOE bases its
assessment on the recorded impacts of any such initiatives to date, but
also considers information presented by interested parties regarding
the impacts current initiatives may have in the future. Further details
regarding the RIA are provided in chapter 17 of the direct final rule
TSD.
P. Other Comments
As discussed previously, DOE considered relevant comments, data,
and information obtained during its own rulemaking process in
determining whether the recommended standards from the Joint Agreement
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). And while some of those
comments were directed at specific aspects of DOE's analysis of the
Joint Agreement under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), others were more generally
applicable to DOE's energy conservation standards rulemaking program as
a whole. The ensuing discussion focuses on these general comments
concerning energy conservation standards issued under EPCA.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
(``NAS'') periodically appoint a committee to peer review the
assumptions, models, and methodologies that DOE uses in setting energy
conservation standards for covered products and equipment. The most
recent such peer review was conducted in a series of meetings in 2020,
and NAS issued the report \112\ in 2021 detailing its findings and
recommendations on how DOE can improve its analyses and align them with
best practices for cost-benefit analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Review of Methods Used by the U.S. Department of Energy in
Setting Appliance and Equipment Standards (2021), available at
nap.nationalacademies.org/25992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM recommended that DOE adopt the recommendations of the NAS
report and incorporate the Regulatory Impact Analysis methodology of
Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') Circular A-4 and start with a
more robust assessment of private market failures and alternatives to
minimum standards that includes a robust identification and assessment
of market failures by market segment. (AHAM, No. 46 at pp. 12-13)
AGA and APGA also commented that DOE should implement
recommendations in the NAS report, specifically: appliance standards
should be economically justified or based on significant failures of
private markets or irrational consumer behavior (Recommendation 2-2);
the Cost Analysis segment of the Engineering Analysis should be
expanded to include ranges of costs, patterns of consumption, diversity
factors, energy peak demand, and variance regarding environmental
factors (Recommendation 3-5); DOE should put greater weight on ex post
and market-based evidence of markups to project a more realistic range
of effects of a standard on prices (Recommendation 4-1); DOE should
place greater emphasis on providing an argument for
[[Page 18210]]
the plausibility and magnitude of any market failure related to the
energy efficiency gap in its analyses (Recommendation 4-13); and DOE
should give greater attention to a broader set of potential market
failures on the supply side, including how standards might reduce the
number of competing firms, and also how standards might impact price
discrimination, technological diffusion, and collusion (Recommendation
4-14). (APGA et al., No. 47 at pp. 2-3)
The rulemaking process for standards of covered products and
equipment are outlined at appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430,
and DOE periodically examines and revises these provisions in separate
rulemaking proceedings. The recommendations in the NAS report cited by
commenters on the August 2022 NOPR, which pertain to the processes by
which DOE analyzes energy conservation standards, will be considered in
a separate rulemaking considering all product categories.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for
consumer clothes dryers. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the
projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy
conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers, and the standards
levels that DOE is adopting in this direct final rule. Additional
details regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the direct final rule
TSD supporting this document.
A. Trial Standard Levels
In general, DOE typically evaluates potential amended standards for
products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency levels for
each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and consider
manufacturer cost interactions between the product classes, to the
extent that there are such interactions, and market cross elasticity
from consumer purchasing decisions that may change when different
standard levels are set.
In the analysis conducted for this direct final rule, DOE analyzed
the benefits and burdens of six TSLs for consumer clothes dryers. DOE
developed TSLs that combine efficiency levels for each analyzed product
class/category using similar technologies and/or efficiencies and
having roughly comparable equipment availability. DOE presents the
results for the TSLs in this document, while the results for all
efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in the direct final rule TSD.
DOE presents the results for the TSLs in this document, while the
results for all efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in the direct
final rule TSD.
Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels
that DOE has identified for potential amended energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers. For the vented gas compact
product class, all TSLs represent the baseline efficiency level because
there are no higher efficiency levels, and this level corresponds to
the efficiency level for vented gas compact clothes dryers in the
Recommended TSL in the Joint Agreement. For all remaining product
classes, the TSLs are defined as follows. TSL 6 represents the maximum
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') energy efficiency. TSL 5
represents the maximum national energy savings with maximum positive
NPV. TSL 4 represents the maximum national energy savings with simple
PBP less than 4 years. TSL 3--which corresponds to the Recommended TSL
in the Joint Agreement--represents the intermediate efficiency level
between TSL 2 and TSL 4. TSL 2 corresponds to the efficiency level with
high-speed spin for ventless electric combination washer-dryer and
automatic termination control system for all other product classes. TSL
1 corresponds to the efficiency level with electronic controls.
Table V.1--Trial Standard Levels for Consumer Clothes Dryers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level and
representative CEFD2 (lb/kWh)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, Standard.............. 1 (2.68).......... 3 (3.27).......... 4 (3.93).......... 5 (4.21).......... 7 (7.39).......... 7 (7.39)
Electric, Compact (120V)........ 1 (3.15).......... 3 (4.28).......... 4 (4.33).......... 4 (4.33).......... 4 (4.33).......... 6 (6.37)
Vented Electric, Compact (240V). 1 (2.44).......... 3 (3.30).......... 4 (3.57).......... 4 (3.57).......... 5 (3.82).......... 6 (3.91)
Vented Gas, Standard............ 1 (2.44).......... 2 (3.00).......... 3 (3.48).......... 3 (3.48).......... 4 (3.83).......... 4 (3.83)
Vented Gas, Compact............. Baseline (2.02)... Baseline (2.02)... Baseline (2.02)... Baseline (2.02)... Baseline (2.02)... Baseline (2.02)
Ventless Electric, Compact Baseline (2.03)... 1 (2.68).......... 1 (2.68).......... 1 (2.68).......... 1 (2.68).......... 2 (6.80)
(240V).
Ventless Electric, Combination Baseline (2.27)... 1 (2.33).......... 1 (2.33).......... 1 (2.33).......... 1 (2.33).......... 2 (4.01)
Washer-Dryer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE constructed the TSLs for this direct final rule to include
efficiency levels (``ELs'') representative of ELs with similar
characteristics (i.e., using similar technologies and/or efficiencies,
and having roughly comparable equipment availability). The use of
representative ELs provided for greater distinction between the TSLs.
While representative ELs were included in the TSLs, DOE considered all
ELs as part of its analysis but did not include all ELs in the
TSLs.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this final rule
are discussed in section IV.C.1 of this document. Results by
efficiency level are presented in the final rule TSD chapters 8 and
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
DOE analyzed the economic impacts on consumers of consumer clothes
dryers by looking at the effects that potential amended standards at
each TSL would have on the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts
of potential standards on selected consumer subgroups. These analyses
are discussed in the following sections.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
In general, higher efficiency products affect consumers in two
ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs) and
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the
[[Page 18211]]
direct final rule TSD provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP
analyses.
Table V.2 through Table V.13 show the LCC and PBP results for the
TSLs considered for each product class. In the first of each pair of
tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline
product. In the second table, the impacts are measured relative to the
efficiency distribution in the in the no-new-standards case in the
compliance year (see section IV.F.8 of this document). Because some
consumers purchase products with higher efficiency in the no-new-
standards case, the average savings are less than the difference
between the average LCC of the baseline product and the average LCC at
each TSL. The savings refer only to consumers who are affected by a
standard at a given TSL. Those who already purchase a product with
efficiency at or above a given TSL are not affected. Consumers for whom
the LCC increases at a given TSL experience a net cost.
Table V.2--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Standard Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2022$)
CEFD2 (lb/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
TSL kWh) Efficiency level First year's Lifetime period (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.20 Baseline..................... $656 $111 $1,251 $1,907 ................ 14
1.......................................... 2.68 1............................ 666 94 1,082 1,748 0.5 14
2.......................................... 3.27 3............................ 672 79 922 1,594 0.5 14
3 *........................................ 3.93 4............................ 678 67 802 1,480 0.6 14
4.......................................... 4.21 5............................ 756 64 759 1,515 2.1 14
5, 6....................................... 7.39 7............................ 1,055 42 514 1,569 5.8 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.
* All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
Table V.3--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Electric Standard Consumer Clothes
Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------------
CEFD2 (lb/ Efficiency Percentage of
TSL kWh) level Average LCC savings consumers that
* (2022$) experience net cost
(%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 2.68 1 $150 1.2
2................................... 3.27 3 170 0.9
3 **................................ 3.93 4 252 0.9
4................................... 4.21 5 100 48.0
5, 6................................ 7.39 7 41 63.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of
2028.
Table V.4--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Compact (120V) Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2022$)
CEFD2 (lb/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
TSL kWh) Efficiency level First year's Lifetime period (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.36 Baseline..................... $683 $40 $325 $1,136 ................ 14
1.......................................... 3.15 1............................ 695 32 257 1,082 1.5 14
2.......................................... 4.28 3............................ 704 25 199 1,017 1.5 14
3 *........................................ 4.33 4............................ 712 25 198 1,023 2.2 14
4, 5....................................... 4.33 4............................ 715 25 198 1,026 2.2 14
6.......................................... 6.37 6............................ 1,057 19 146 1,301 18.1 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.
* All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
Table V.5--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Electric Compact (120V) Consumer
Clothes Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------------
CEFD2 (lb/ Efficiency Percentage of
TSL kWh) level Average LCC savings consumers that
* (2022$) experience net cost
(%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 3.15 1 $53 4.8
2................................... 4.28 3 83 5.1
** 3................................ 4.33 4 66 21.4
4, 5................................ 4.33 4 66 21.7
[[Page 18212]]
6................................... 6.37 6 (209) 90.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of
2028.
Table V.6--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Compact (240V) Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2022$)
CEFD2 (lb/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
TSL kWh) Efficiency level First year's Lifetime period (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.00 Baseline..................... $685 $47 $541 $1,226 ................ 14
1.......................................... 2.44 1............................ 698 41 490 1,187 2.1 14
2.......................................... 3.30 3............................ 707 32 394 1,101 1.5 14
3 *........................................ 3.57 4............................ 714 30 375 1,090 2.0 14
4.......................................... 3.57 4............................ 718 30 374 1,092 2.0 14
5.......................................... 3.82 5............................ 802 29 357 1,160 6.6 14
6.......................................... 3.91 6............................ 1,059 29 352 1,412 20.4 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.
* All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
Table V.7--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Vented Electric Compact (240V) Consumer
Clothes Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-Cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------------
CEFD2 (lb/ Efficiency Percentage of
TSL kWh) level Average LCC savings consumers that
* (2022$) experience net cost
(%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 2.44 1 $38 5.7
2................................... 3.30 3 89 4.6
3 **................................ 3.57 4 90 12.4
4................................... 3.57 4 90 12.6
5................................... 3.82 5 22 60.7
6................................... 3.91 6 (230) 92.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of
2028.
Table V.8--Average LCC and PBP Results for Vented Gas Standard Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2022$)
CEFD2 (lb/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
TSL kWh) Efficiency level First year's Lifetime period lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years) (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.00 Baseline........................ $794 $56 $668 $1,461 .............. 14
1............................................. 2.44 1............................... 810 50 607 1,417 2.5 14
2............................................. 3.00 2............................... 813 41 511 1,324 1.3 14
3 *........................................... 3.48 3............................... 825 36 465 1,291 1.9 14
4............................................. 3.48 3............................... 830 37 464 1,293 1.9 14
5, 6.......................................... 3.83 4............................... 904 34 429 1,333 5.0 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.
* All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
[[Page 18213]]
Table V.9--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Vented Gas Standard Consumer Clothes
Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------------
CEFD2 (lb/ Efficiency Percentage of
TSL kWh) level Average LCC savings consumers that
* (2022$) experience net cost
(%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 2.44 1 $48 2.7%
2................................... 3.00 2 112 1.7
3 **................................ 3.48 3 102 7.1
4................................... 3.48 3 102 7.0
5, 6................................ 3.83 4 13 68.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of
2028.
Table V.10--Average LCC and PBP Results for Ventless Electric Compact (240V) Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2022$)
CEFD2 (lb/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
TSL kWh) Efficiency level First year's Lifetime period (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.03 Baseline..................... $1,020 $41 $475 $1,495 ................ 14
1.......................................... 2.03 Baseline..................... 1,020 41 475 1,495 ................ 14
2, 4, 5.................................... 2.68 1............................ 1,024 31 368 1,392 0.4 14
3 *........................................ 2.68 1............................ 1,018 30 370 1,387 0.4 14
6.......................................... 6.80 2............................ 1,346 12 167 1,513 11.4 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.
* All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
Table V.11--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Ventless Electric Compact (240V)
Consumer Clothes Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------------
CEFD2 (lb/ Efficiency Percentage of
TSL kWh) level Average LCC savings consumers that
* (2022$) experience net cost
(%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 2.03 Baseline .................... ....................
2, 4, 5............................. 2.68 1 99 0.0
3 **................................ 2.68 1 99 0.0
6................................... 6.80 2 (102) 58.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of
2028.
Table V.12--Average LCC and PBP Results for Ventless Electric Combination Washer-Dryer Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2022$)
CEFD2 (lb/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
TSL kWh) Efficiency level First year's Lifetime period (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................... 2.27 Baseline..................... $1,335 $37 $445 $1,780 ................ 14
2, 4, 5.................................... 2.33 1............................ 1,335 36 435 1,769 0.0 14
3 *........................................ 2.33 1............................ 1,327 36 436 1,763 0.0 14
6.......................................... 4.01 2............................ 2,031 22 275 2,305 46.3 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.
* All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
[[Page 18214]]
Table V.13--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Ventless Electric Combination Washer-
Dryer Consumer Clothes Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------------
CEFD2 (lb/ Efficiency Percentage of
TSL kWh) level Average LCC savings consumers that
* (2022$) experience net cost
(%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 2.27 Baseline .................... ....................
2, 4, 5............................. 2.33 1 $10 0.0
3 **................................ 2.33 1 11 0.0
6................................... 4.01 2 (531) 95.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of
2028.
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the
considered TSLs on low-income households and senior-only households.
Table V.14 through Table V.25 compare the average LCC savings, PBP,
percent of consumers negatively impacted, and percent of consumers
positively impacted at each EL for the consumer subgroups, along with
corresponding values for the entire residential consumer sample for
product classes with a sufficient sample size. In most cases, the
average LCC savings and PBP for low-income households and senior-only
households at the considered ELs are not substantially different from
the average for all households. Chapter 11 of the direct final rule TSD
presents the complete LCC and PBP results for the subgroups.
Table V.14--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households: Electric Standard Consumer Clothes Dryers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average life-cycle cost savings * (2022$) Simple payback period (years)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL TSL Low-income Senior-only Low-income Senior-only
households households All households households households All households
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 1 $148 $110 $150 0.3 0.7 0.5
3....................................... 2 166 128 170 0.3 0.6 0.5
4....................................... ** 3 245 190 252 0.3 0.8 0.6
5....................................... 4 127 58 100 1.1 2.8 2.1
7....................................... 5, 6 180 (56) 41 3.2 7.6 5.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
Table V.15--Comparison of Percentages of Impacted Consumers * for Consumer Subgroups and All Households:
Electric Standard Consumer Clothes Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
EL TSL households households All households
(%) (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 1 1.3 1.4 1.2
3............................................... 2 1.0 1.1 0.9
4............................................... ** 3 0.8 1.1 0.9
5............................................... 4 26.6 53.6 48.0
7............................................... 5, 6 34.9 71.6 63.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Percentage of impacted consumers indicates households with net cost.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of
2028.
Table V.16--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households: Electric Compact (120V) Consumer Clothes Dryers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average life-cycle cost savings * (2022$) Simple payback period (years)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL TSL Low-income Senior-only Low-income Senior-only
households households All households households households All households
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 1 $67 $34 $53 0.7 2.1 1.5
3....................................... 2 96 61 83 0.7 1.9 1.5
4....................................... ** 3 84 46 66 1.0 2.9 2.2
4....................................... 4, 5 83 46 66 1.0 2.9 2.2
6....................................... 6 (23) (243) (209) 8.5 23.4 18.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
[[Page 18215]]
Table V.17--Comparison of Percentages of Impacted Consumers * for Consumer Subgroups and All Households:
Electric Compact (120V) Consumer Clothes Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income
EL TSL households Senior-only All households (%)
(%) households (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 1 4.0 5.0 4.8
3................................... 2 3.8 5.6 5.1
4................................... ** 3 12.2 24.8 21.4
4................................... 4, 5 12.2 25.0 21.7
6................................... 6 43.9 94.9 90.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Percentage of impacted consumers indicates households with net cost.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of
2028.
Table V.18--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households: Vented Electric Compact (240V) Consumer Clothes Dryers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average life-cycle cost savings * (2022$) Simple payback period (years)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL TSL Low-income Senior-only Low-income Senior-only
households households All households households households All households
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 1 $51 $22 $38 1.0 2.8 2.1
3....................................... 2 102 66 89 0.7 2.0 1.5
4....................................... ** 3 109 65 90 1.0 2.6 2.0
4....................................... 4 109 64 90 1.0 2.6 2.0
5....................................... 5 83 (7) 22 3.1 8.5 6.6
6....................................... 6 (45) (260) (230) 9.6 26.5 20.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
Table V.19--Comparison of Percent of Impacted Consumers * for Consumer Subgroups and All Households: Vented
Electric Compact (240V) Consumer Clothes Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income
EL TSL households Senior-only All households (%)
(%) households (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... 1 4.5 6.0 5.7
3................................... 2 3.7 5.0 4.6
4................................... ** 3 7.4 15.1 12.4
4................................... 4 7.5 15.3 12.6
5................................... 5 30.0 68.5 60.7
6................................... 6 44.9 96.1 92.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Percent of impacted consumers indicates households with net cost.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of
2028.
Table V.20--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households: Vented Gas Standard Consumer Clothes Dryers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average life-cycle cost savings * (2022$) Simple payback period (years)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL TSL Low-income Senior-only Low-income Senior-only
households households All households households households All households
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 1 $57 $33 $48 1.3 3.3 2.5
2....................................... 2 117 91 112 0.7 1.6 1.3
3....................................... ** 3 113 81 102 1.0 2.4 1.9
3....................................... 4 113 81 102 1.0 2.4 1.9
4....................................... 5, 6 54 (5) 13 2.7 6.3 5.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
Table V.21--Comparison of Percentages of Impacted Consumers * for Consumer Subgroups and All Households: Vented
Gas Standard Consumer Clothes Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
EL TSL households households All households
(%) (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 1 2.4 3.0 2.7
2............................................... 2 1.6 1.7 1.7
3............................................... ** 3 4.8 8.9 7.1
3............................................... 3, 4 4.8 8.8 7.0
[[Page 18216]]
4............................................... 5, 6 35.9 74.5 68.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Percentage of impacted consumers indicates households with net cost.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of
2028.
Table V.22--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households: Ventless Electric Compact (240V) Consumer Clothes Dryers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average life-cycle cost savings * (2022$) Simple payback period (years)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL TSL Low-income Senior-only Low-income Senior-only
households households All households households households All households
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 1 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
1....................................... 2, 4, 5 $108 $80 $99 0.2 0.5 0.4
1....................................... ** 3 108 80 99 0.2 0.5 0.4
2....................................... 6 64 (147) (102) 5.4 14.5 11.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
Table V.23--Comparison of Percent of Impacted Consumers * for Consumer Subgroups and All Households: Ventless
Electric Compact (240V) Consumer Clothes Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
EL TSL households households All households
(%) (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................................... 1 .............. .............. ..............
1............................................... 2, 4, 5 0.0 0.0 0.0
2............................................... ** 3 0.0 0.0 0.0
2............................................... 6 27.8 63.4 58.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Percentage of impacted consumers indicates households with net cost.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of
2028.
Table V.24--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households: Ventless Electric Combination Washer-Dryer Consumer Clothes
Dryers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average life-cycle cost savings * (2022$) Simple payback period (years)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL TSL Low-income Senior-only Low-income Senior-only
households households All households households households All households
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 1 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
1....................................... 2, 4, 5 $11 $8 $10 0.0 0.0 0.0
1....................................... ** 3 11 8 11 0.0 0.0 0.0
2....................................... 6 (186) (565) (531) 22.0 58.6 46.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
Table V.25--Comparison of Percentages of Impacted Consumers * for Consumer Subgroups and All Households:
Ventless Electric Combination Washer-Dryer Consumer Clothes Dryers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
EL TSL households households All households
(%) (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................................... 1 .............. .............. ..............
1............................................... 2, 4, 5 0.0 0.0 0.0
1............................................... ** 3 0.0 0.0 0.0
2............................................... 6 44.8 96.2 95.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Percentage of impacted consumers indicates households with net cost.
** All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of
2028.
[[Page 18217]]
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
As discussed in section II.A of this document, EPCA establishes a
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is
economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product
that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the
first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a
rebuttable presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs,
DOE used discrete values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy
use calculation on the DOE test procedures for consumer clothes dryers.
In contrast, the PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a of this document
were calculated using distributions that reflect the range of energy
use in the field.
Table V.26 presents the rebuttable presumption payback periods for
the considered TSLs for consumer clothes dryers. While DOE examined the
rebuttable presumption criterion, it considered whether the standard
levels considered for this rule are economically justified through a
more detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full range
of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment. The
results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively
evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level,
thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary
determination of economic justification.
Table V.26--Rebuttable Presumption Payback Periods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Product class -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3* 4 5 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(years)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, Standard...................................... 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.5 4.1 4.1
Electric, Compact (120 V)............................... 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 13.0
Vented Electric, Compact (240 V)........................ 3.2 1.0 1.4 1.4 4.6 14.2
Vented Gas, Standard.................................... 3.1 2.0 2.9 2.8 7.8 7.8
Ventless Electric, Compact (240 V)...................... .............. 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 8.8
Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer............. .............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All TSLs except TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027. TSL 3 has a compliance year of 2028.
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy
conservation standards on manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers. The
next section describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each
considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD explains the
analysis in further detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which
examines changes in the industry that would result from a standard. The
following tables summarize the estimated financial impacts (represented
by changes in INPV) of potential amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers, as well as the conversion
costs that DOE estimates manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers would
incur at each TSL.
The impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards were
analyzed under two scenarios: (1) the preservation of gross margin
percentage; and (2) the preservation of operating profit as discussed
in section IV.J.2.d of this document. In the preservation-of-gross-
margin-percentage scenario, DOE applied a gross margin percentage of 21
percent for all product classes and all efficiency levels in the
standards case.\114\ This scenario assumes that a manufacturer's per-
unit dollar profit would increase as MPCs increase in the standards
cases. DOE models this scenario as an upper bound to industry
profitability under an energy conservation standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ The gross margin percentage of 21 percent is based on a
manufacturer markup of 1.26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario, manufacturers do
not earn additional operating profit when compared to the no-new-
standards case scenario. While manufacturers make the necessary upfront
investments required to produce compliant products, per-unit operating
profit does not change in absolute dollars. DOE models this scenario as
the lower bound to industry profitability under an energy conservation
standard.
Each of the modeled scenarios results in a unique set of cash flows
and corresponding INPV for each TSL. INPV is the sum of the discounted
cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the
analysis period (30 years from the analyzed compliance year).\115\ The
``change in INPV'' results refer to the difference in industry value
between the no-new-standards case and standards case at each TSL. To
provide perspective on the short-run cash-flow impact, DOE includes a
comparison of free cash flow between the no-new-standards case and the
standards case at each TSL in the year before amended standards would
take effect. This figure provides an understanding of the magnitude of
the required conversion costs relative to the cash flow generated by
the industry in the no-new-standards case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ The analysis period ranges from 2024-2056 for the no-new-
standards case and all TSLs, except for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL).
The analysis period for TSL 3 ranges from 2024-2057 due to the 2028
compliance year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion costs are one-time investments for manufacturers to
bring their manufacturing facilities and product designs into
compliance with potential amended standards. As described in section
IV.J.2.c of this document, conversion cost investments occur between
the year of publication of the direct final rule and the year by which
manufacturers must comply with the new standard. The conversion costs
can have a significant impact on short-term cash flow within the
industry and generally result in lower free cash flow in the period
between publication of the direct final rule and the compliance date of
potential amended standards. Conversion costs are independent of the
manufacturer markup scenarios and are not presented as a range in this
analysis.
[[Page 18218]]
Table V.27--Manufacturer Impact Analysis Results for Consumer Clothes Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-new- standards
Units case TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV............................ 2022$ millions..... 2,115.4 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
Change in INPV *................ %.................. ................. (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)
Free Cash Flow (2026) **........ 2022$ millions..... *** 136.7 119.2............. 109.7............. 61.2.............. (153.7)........... (496.0)........... (531.4)
Change in Free Cash Flow (2026) %.................. ................. (12.8)............ (19.8)............ (55.2)............ (212.5)........... (462.9)........... (488.8)
**.
Product Conversion Costs........ 2022$ millions..... ................. 27.3.............. 37.6.............. 51.7.............. 87.7.............. 122.6............. 128.2
Capital Conversion Costs........ 2022$ millions..... ................. 18.6.............. 31.9.............. 128.9............. 579.7............. 1,314.3........... 1,388.8
Total Conversion Costs.......... 2022$ millions..... ................. 45.8.............. 69.5.............. 180.7............. 667.5............. 1,436.9........... 1,516.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses denote negative values.
** TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) represents the change in free cash flow in 2027, a year before the 2028 compliance date.
*** In 2027, the no-new-standards free cash flow is $136.6 million.
The cash flow results discussion below refers to product classes as
defined in Table IV.1 in section IV.A.1 of this document. It also
refers to the efficiency levels and associated design options
designated in Table IV.5 through Table IV.10 in section IV.C.1.b of
this document.
At TSL 1, the standard reflects efficiency levels with electronic
controls for all product classes. The change in INPV is expected to
range from -1.7 to -1.5 percent. At this level, free cash flow is
estimated to decrease by 12.8 percent compared to the no-new-standards
case value of $136.7 million in the year 2026, the year before the 2027
standards year. DOE's shipments analysis estimates approximately 85
percent of current shipments meet this level.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Current shipments calculations relied on shipments in 2024
(the reference year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The design options DOE analyzed include implementing electronic
controls. For electric standard, electric compact (120V), vented
electric compact (240V), and vented gas standard, TSL 1 corresponds to
EL 1. For ventless electric compact (240V) and ventless electric
combination washer-dryer, TSL 1 corresponds to the baseline
CEFD2. Capital conversion costs may be necessary for
additional tooling for timers and electronics. Product conversion costs
may be necessary for developing, sourcing, and testing electronics
(e.g., safety, performance, and durability tests). DOE does not expect
industry to incur re-flooring costs at this level since the necessary
enhancements could be done ``behind the hinge,'' incorporating the
design changes in a manner that does not impact product appearance. DOE
does not expect industry to incur conversion costs related to the
ventless electric compact (240V) or ventless electric combination
washer-dryer as the efficiency levels would remain at baseline. DOE
estimates capital conversion costs of $18.6 million and product
conversion costs of $27.3 million. Conversion costs total $45.8
million.
At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all consumer
clothes dryers is expected to increase by 0.3 percent relative to the
no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all consumer
clothes dryers in 2027. Given this relatively small increase in
production costs, DOE does not project a notable drop in shipments in
the year the standard takes effect. In the preservation-of-gross-
margin-percentage scenario, the slight increase in cash flow from the
higher MSP is outweighed by the $45.8 million in conversion costs,
causing a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under this
scenario. Under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario,
manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be
earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn
additional profit from their investments. In this scenario, the
manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, the year after the analyzed 2027
compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the
$45.8 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a
slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under the preservation-of-
operating-profit scenario.
At TSL 2, the standard reflects efficiency levels with more
advanced automatic termination controls for electric standard, electric
compact (120V), vented electric compact (240V), vented gas standard,
and ventless electric compact (240V), and high-speed spin for ventless
electric combination washer-dryer. The change in INPV is expected to
range from -2.6 to -2.2 percent. At this level, free cash flow is
estimated to decrease 19.8 percent compared to the no-new-standards
case value of $136.7 million in the year 2026, the year before the 2027
standards year. DOE's shipments analysis estimates approximately 58
percent of current shipments meet this level.
The design options for electric standard, electric compact (120V),
vented electric compact (240V), vented gas standard, and ventless
electric compact (240V) include implementing electronic controls,
optimized heating systems, and more advanced automatic termination
controls. For ventless electric combination washer-dryer, the design
option analyzed includes high-speed spin cycles. For the electric
standard, electric compact (120V), and vented electric compact (240V),
TSL 2 corresponds to EL 3. For vented gas standard, TSL 2 corresponds
to EL 2. For ventless electric compact (240V) and ventless electric
combination washer-dryer, TSL 2 corresponds to EL 1. Capital conversion
costs may be necessary for incremental updates in tooling. Product
conversion costs may be necessary for software optimization,
prototyping, and testing. DOE expects industry to incur some re-
flooring costs as manufacturers redesign product lines to meet the
efficiency levels required by TSL 2. DOE estimates capital conversion
costs of $31.9 million and product conversion costs of $37.6 million.
Conversion costs total $69.5 million.
At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all consumer
clothes dryers is expected to increase by 0.6 percent relative to the
no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all consumer
clothes dryers in 2027. Given the relatively small increase in
production costs, DOE does not project a notable drop in shipments in
the year
[[Page 18219]]
the standard takes effect. In the preservation-of-gross-margin-
percentage scenario, the slight increase cash flow from the higher MSP
is outweighed by the $69.5 million in conversion costs, causing a
slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under this scenario. Under
the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario, the manufacturer markup
decreases in 2028, the year after the analyzed 2027 compliance year.
This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $69.5 million in
conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a negative change in
INPV at TSL 2 under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario.
At TSL 3 (i.e., the Recommended TSL), the standard reflects a set
of efficiency levels between the levels designated in TSL 2 and TSL 4.
The change in INPV is expected to range from -6.8 to -5.7 percent. At
this level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease 55.2 percent
compared to the no-new-standards case value of $136.6 million in the
year 2027, the year before the 2028 standards year. DOE's shipments
analysis estimates approximately 48 percent of current shipments meet
this level.
The design options analyzed for electric standard, electric compact
(120V), vented electric compact (240V), and vented gas standard include
implementing electronic controls, optimized heating systems, more
advanced automatic termination controls, and modulating heat. For
ventless electric compact (240V) and ventless electric combination
washer-dryer, the design options analyzed are the same as TSL 2. For
electric standard, electric compact (120V), and vented electric compact
(240V), TSL 3 corresponds to EL 4. For vented gas standard, TSL 3
corresponds to EL 3. For ventless electric compact (240V) and ventless
electric combination washer-dryer, TSL 3 corresponds to EL 1. The
incremental increase in industry conversion costs from the prior TSL
are due to the higher efficiency level requirements for electric
standard, electric compact (120V), vented electric compact (240V), and
vented gas standard. Capital conversion costs may be necessary as
manufacturers increase tooling for two-stage heating systems. Product
conversion costs may be necessary for prototyping and testing. DOE
expects industry to incur similar re-flooring costs as with TSL 2. DOE
estimates capital conversion costs of $128.9 million and product
conversion costs of $51.7 million. Conversion costs total $180.7
million.
At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all consumer
clothes dryers is expected to increase by 1.7 percent relative to the
no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all consumer
clothes dryers in 2028. Given the relatively small increase in
production costs, DOE does not project a notable drop in shipments in
the year the standard takes effect. In the preservation-of-gross-
margin-percentage scenario, the increase in cash flow from the higher
MSP is outweighed by the $180.7 million in conversion costs, causing a
negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under this scenario. Under the
preservation-of-operating-profit scenario, the manufacturer markup
decreases in 2029, the year after the analyzed 2028 compliance year.
This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $180.7 million in
conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a negative change in
INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario.
At TSL 4, the standard reflects the maximum national energy savings
with a simple PBP of less than 4 years. The change in INPV is expected
to range from -29.0 to -18.5 percent. At this level, free cash flow is
estimated to decrease by 212.5 percent compared to the no-new-standards
case value of $136.7 million in the year 2026, the year before the 2027
standards year. DOE's shipments analysis estimates approximately 15
percent of current shipments meet this level.
The design options analyzed for electric standard include
implementing electronic controls, optimized heating systems, more
advanced automatic termination controls, modulating heat, and inlet air
preheat. For the remaining product classes, the efficiency levels and
analyzed design options for TSL 4 are the same as TSL 3. The
incremental increase in industry conversion costs from the prior TSL is
due to the efficiency level requirements for electric standard. 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. Electric standard dryers account
for an estimated 81 percent of domestic consumer clothes dryer
shipments. Of these standard electric dryer shipments, DOE estimates
only 7 percent meet or exceed the efficiency level required by TSL 4.
Implementing inlet air preheat represents a major overhaul of existing
product lines and manufacturing facilities. For capital conversion
costs, this change might necessitate significant new equipment and
tooling. Product conversion costs may be necessary for designing,
prototyping, and testing new or updated platforms. DOE expects industry
to incur more re-flooring costs compared to prior TSLs as more display
units would need to be replaced with high-efficiency models. DOE
estimates capital conversion costs of $579.7 million and product
conversion costs of $87.7 million. Conversion costs total $667.5
million.
At TSL 4, the large conversion costs result in free cash flow
dropping below zero in the years before the standards year. The
negative free cash-flow calculation indicates manufacturers may need to
access cash reserves or outside capital to finance conversion efforts.
At this level, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all consumer
clothes dryers is expected to increase by 13 percent relative to the
no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all consumer
clothes dryers in 2027. Given the projected increase in production
costs, DOE estimates a less than 1-percent drop in shipments in the
year the standard takes effect compared to the no-new-standards case.
In the preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage scenario, the increase
in cash flow from the higher MSP is outweighed by the $667.5 million in
conversion costs, causing a negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under this
scenario. Under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario, the
manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, the year after the analyzed 2027
compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the
$667.5 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a
negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under the preservation-of-operating-
profit scenario.
At TSL 5, the standard reflects the maximum national energy savings
with maximum positive NPV. The change in INPV is expected to range from
-67.9 to -14.9 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to
decrease by 462.9 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value
of $136.7 million in the year 2026, the year before the 2027 standards
year. DOE's shipments analysis estimates approximately 2 percent of
current shipments meet this level.
The design option analyzed for electric standard includes
implementing heat pump technology. The design options analyzed for the
vented electric compact (240V) and vented gas standard include
implementing electronic controls, optimized heating systems, more
advanced automatic termination controls, modulating heat, and inlet air
preheat. For electric compact (120V), ventless electric compact (240V),
and ventless electric combination washer-
[[Page 18220]]
dryer, the design options analyzed are the same as the prior TSL. For
electric standard, TSL 5 corresponds to EL 7. For electric compact
(120V) and vented gas standard, TSL 5 corresponds to EL 4. For vented
electric compact (240V), TSL 5 corresponds to EL 5. For ventless
electric compact (240V) and ventless electric combination washer-dryer,
TSL 5 corresponds to EL 1.
At TSL 5, conversion costs are largely driven by the max-tech
efficiency level required for electric standard and vented gas
standard. As previously discussed, electric standard dryers account for
81 percent of domestic consumer clothes dryer shipments. Currently,
there are few electric standard models on the U.S. market that meet the
max-tech efficiency level required by TSL 5. Of the 13 OEMs identified
that offer electric standard dryers, only five OEMs manufacture
electric standard dryers that utilize heat pump technology. Of these
five OEMs, four OEMs offer approximately six models (accounting for
less than 1 percent of electric standard model listings) that meet the
max-tech level required at TSL 5. Nearly all manufacturers would need
to significantly update facilities to meet a heat pump efficiency level
for electric standard dryers. Mandating a heat pump efficiency level
for this product class would require many manufacturers to design
completely new clothes dryer platforms or adapt heat pump designs from
other markets (i.e., redesign European heat pump models to adhere to
U.S. safety standards and consumer preferences).
Vented gas standard dryers account for approximately 17 percent of
domestic consumer clothes dryer shipments. Manufacturers would need to
implement inlet air preheat technology along with other design options
to meet the efficiency levels required by TSL 5. Thus far, dryers with
this technology and performance have not been observed in clothes
dryers available on the consumer market. 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.
DOE expects industry to incur more re-flooring costs compared to
prior TSLs, as nearly all display units would need to be replaced with
high-efficiency models. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of
$1,314.3 million and product conversion costs of $122.6 million.
Conversion costs total $1,436.9 million.
As with TSL 4, the large conversion costs result in free cash flow
dropping below zero in the years before the standard year. The negative
free cash-flow calculation indicates manufacturers may need to access
cash reserves or outside capital to finance conversion efforts.
At this level, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all consumer
clothes dryers is expected to increase by 63.2 percent relative to the
no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all consumer
clothes dryers in 2027. Given the projected increase in production
costs, DOE expects an estimated 11-percent drop in shipments in the
year the standard takes effect compared to the no-new-standards case.
In the preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage scenario, the increase
in MSP is outweighed by the $1,436.9 million in conversion costs and
the drop in annual shipments, causing a negative change in INPV at TSL
5 under this scenario. Under the preservation-of-operating-profit
scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, the year after the
analyzed 2027 compliance year. This large reduction in manufacturer
markup, the $1,436.9 million in conversion costs incurred by
manufacturers, and the drop in annual shipments cause a significantly
negative change in INPV at TSL 5 under the preservation-of-operating-
profit scenario.
At TSL 6, the standard reflects max-tech efficiency for all product
classes. The change in INPV is expected to range from -71.4 to -17.1
percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease by
488.8 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $136.7
million in the year 2026, the year before the 2027 standards year.
DOE's shipments analysis estimates approximately 1 percent of current
shipments meet this level.
The design option analyzed for TSL 6 incorporates heat pump
technology for electric standard, electric compact (120V), vented
electric compact (240V), ventless electric compact (240V), and ventless
electric combination washer-dryer. For vented gas standard, the design
options analyzed include implementing electronic controls, optimized
heating systems, more advanced automatic termination controls,
modulating heat, and inlet air preheat.
Of the 19 OEMs that manufacture electric consumer clothes dryers
(i.e., electric standard, electric compact (120V), vented electric
compact (240V), ventless electric compact (240V), ventless electric
combination washer-dryer), 10 OEMs do not currently offer any consumer
clothes dryer models for the U.S. market that utilize heat pump
technology. Of the 13 OEMs that offer electric standard clothes dryers,
four OEMs currently offer some models that meet the max-tech heat pump
level. Of the 10 OEMs that offer electric compact (120V) clothes
dryers, one OEM offers a model that meets the max-tech level. Of the
five OEMs that offer vented electric compact (240V) clothes dryers, one
OEM offers models that meet the max-tech level. Of the 13 OEMs that
offer ventless electric compact (240V) clothes dryers, one OEM offers a
model that meets the max-tech level. Of the five OEMs that offer
ventless electric combination washer-dryer, two OEMs offer models that
meet the max-tech level.
A standard that could only be met using heat pump technology could
require a total renovation of existing facilities and completely new
clothes dryer platforms for manufacturers that do not offer heat pump
clothes dryers today. In interviews, two OEMs with significant market
shares stated that they would require additional facilities to handle
dryer manufacturing under a standard that could only be met using heat
pump technology. As previously discussed, implementing inlet air
preheat also represents a major overhaul of existing vented gas product
lines. DOE expects industry to incur slightly more re-flooring costs
compared to TSL 5, as all display models below max-tech efficiency
would need to be replaced due to the higher standard. At TSL 6,
reaching max-tech efficiency levels is a billion-dollar investment for
industry. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $1,388.8 million
and product conversion costs of $128.2 million. Conversion costs total
$1,516.9 million.
As with TSL 4 and TSL 5, the large conversion costs result in free
cash flow dropping below zero in the years before the standard year.
The negative free cash-flow calculation indicates manufacturers may
need to access cash reserves or outside capital to finance conversion
efforts.
At this level, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all consumer
clothes dryers is expected to increase by 64.7 percent relative to the
no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all consumer
clothes dryers in 2027. Given the projected increase in production
costs, DOE expects an
[[Page 18221]]
estimated 11-percent drop in shipments in the year the standard takes
effect compared to the no-new-standards case. In the preservation-of-
gross-margin-percentage scenario, the large increase in MSP is still
outweighed by the $1,516.9 million in conversion costs and drop in
annual shipments, causing a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 6
under this scenario. Under the preservation-of-operating-profit
scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, the year after the
analyzed 2027 compliance year. This large reduction in manufacturer
markup, the $1,516.9 million in conversion costs incurred by
manufacturers, and the drop in annual shipments cause a significantly
negative change in INPV at TSL 6 under the preservation-of-operating-
profit scenario.
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
To quantitatively assess the potential impacts of amended energy
conservation standards on direct employment in the consumer clothes
dryer industry, DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor
expenditures and number of direct employees in the no-new-standards
case and in each of the standards cases during the analysis period. For
the direct final rule, DOE used the most up-to-date information
available. DOE calculated these values using statistical data from the
U.S. Census Bureau's 2021 ASM,\117\ the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics' employee compensation data,\118\ results of the engineering
analysis, and manufacturer interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures: Summary
Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries in the U.S.: 2018-
2021. Available at www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/data/tables.html (last accessed May 23, 2023).
\118\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation. March 17, 2023. Available at www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf (last accessed June 8, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor expenditures related to product manufacturing depend on the
labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, and an assumption
that wages remain fixed in real terms over time. The total labor
expenditures in each year are calculated by multiplying the total MPCs
by the labor percentage of MPCs. The total labor expenditures in the
GRIM were then converted to total production employment levels by
dividing production labor expenditures by the average fully burdened
wage multiplied by the average number of hours worked per year per
production worker. To do this, DOE relied on ASM inputs: Production
Workers Annual Wages, Production Workers Annual Hours, Production
Workers for Pay Period, and Number of Employees. DOE also relied on BLS
employee compensation data to determine the fully burdened wage ratio.
The fully burdened wage ratio factors in paid leave, supplemental pay,
insurance, retirement and savings, and legally required benefits.
The number of production employees is then multiplied by the U.S.
labor percentage to convert total production employment to total
domestic production employment. The U.S. labor percentage represents
the industry fraction of domestic manufacturing production capacity for
the covered product. This value is derived from manufacturer
interviews, product database analysis, and publicly available
information. For the August 2022 NOPR, DOE estimated that approximately
58 percent of consumer clothes dryers were produced domestically. In
support of this direct final rule analysis, DOE conducted further
research to ensure this estimate was still accurate. Based on a review
of publicly available data, DOE estimates that 60 percent of consumer
clothes dryers are produced domestically.
The domestic production employees estimate covers production line
workers, including line supervisors, who are directly involved in
fabricating and assembling products within the OEM facility. Workers
performing services that are closely associated with production
operations, such as materials-handling tasks using forklifts, are also
included as production labor. DOE's estimates only account for
production workers who manufacture the specific products covered by
this amended rulemaking.
Non-production workers account for the remainder of the direct
employment figure. The non-production employees estimate covers
domestic workers who are not directly involved in the production
process, such as sales, engineering, human resources, and management.
Using the amount of domestic production workers calculated above, non-
production domestic employees are extrapolated by multiplying the ratio
of non-production workers in the industry compared to production
employees. DOE assumes that this employee distribution ratio remains
constant between the no-new-standards case and standards cases.
Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that in the absence of new energy
conservation standards, there would be 2,725 domestic production and
non-production workers for consumer clothes dryers in 2027. Table V.28
shows the range of the impacts of energy conservation standards on U.S.
manufacturing employment in the consumer clothes dryer industry. The
following discussion provides a qualitative evaluation of the range of
potential impacts presented in Table V.28.
Table V.28--Domestic Direct Employment Impacts for Consumer Clothes Dryer Manufacturers in the Analyzed Compliance Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-new-
standards case TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Employment in 2027 * ** 2,725 2,729........... 2,752........... 2,778........... 3,106........... 5,687........... 5,737
(Production Workers + Non-
Production Workers).
Potential Changes in Direct .............. (2,433) to 4.... (2,433) to 27... (2,433) to 34... (2,433) to 381.. (2,433) to 2,962 (2,433) to
Employment Workers ***. 3,012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) represents the direct employment in 2028.
** In 2028, the no-new-standards case direct employment estimate is 2,744.
*** DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Parentheses denote negative values.
The direct employment impacts shown in Table V.29 represent the
potential domestic employment changes that could result following the
compliance date for the consumer clothes dryer product classes in this
amended rule. The upper-bound estimate corresponds to an increase in
the number of domestic workers that would result from amended energy
conservation standards if manufacturers continue to produce the same
scope of
[[Page 18222]]
covered products within the United States after compliance takes
effect. The lower-bound estimate represents the maximum decrease in
production workers if manufacturing moved to lower labor-cost
countries. Most manufacturers currently produce at least a portion of
their consumer clothes dryers in countries with lower labor costs, and
an amended standard that necessitates large increases in labor content
or large expenditures to retool facilities could cause manufacturers to
reevaluate domestic production siting options. However, the Recommended
TSL (i.e., TSL 3) would likely not require significant increases in
labor content or significant capital investments. As such, DOE expects
that the likelihood of changes in production location as a direct
result of amended standards are relatively low.
Additional detail on the analysis of direct employment can be found
in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. Additionally, the
employment impacts discussed in this section are independent of the
employment impacts from the broader U.S. economy, which are documented
in chapter 16 of the direct final rule TSD.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
As discussed in section V.B.2.a of this document, implementing the
different design options analyzed for this direct final rule would
require varying levels of resources and investment. A standard level
that would require the use of heat pump technology for electric dryers
and combination washer-dryers would represent the biggest shift in
technology for clothes dryer manufacturing among all the design options
considered for this analysis. Adopting efficiency levels that require
heat pump technology would necessitate very large investments to both
redesign products and update production facilities. Currently, DOE
estimates that approximately 1 percent of consumer clothes dryer
shipments meet the analyzed max-tech heat pump efficiency levels. In
interviews, several manufacturers expressed concern that the 3-year
EPCA-specified time period between the announcement of a final rule and
the compliance date of the amended energy conservation standard might
be insufficient to design, test, and manufacture the necessary number
of products to meet demand.
In interviews, some manufacturers raised concerns about
implementing inlet air preheat designs. Unlike the discussions about
heat pump technology, there is very little industry experience with
inlet air preheat designs. Currently, no models on the U.S. market
incorporate this design option. Several manufacturers speculated that
implementing inlet air preheat would require a major overhaul of
existing production facilities and a significant amount of engineering
time.
However, because TSL 3 (i.e., the Recommended TSL) would not
require heat pump technology or inlet air preheat designs, DOE does not
expect manufacturers to face long-term capacity constraints due to the
standard levels detailed in this direct final rule. Furthermore, at the
Recommended TSL, manufacturers will have a 4-year period between the
announcement of the direct final rule and the compliance date of the
amended energy conservation standards to redesign products to meet the
adopted standard levels.
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
Using average cost assumptions to develop industry cash flow
estimates may not capture the differential impacts among subgroups of
manufacturers. Small manufacturers, niche players, or manufacturers
exhibiting a cost structure that differs substantially from the
industry average could be affected disproportionately. DOE investigated
small businesses as a manufacturer subgroup that could be
disproportionally impacted by energy conservation standards and could
merit additional analysis. DOE did not identify any other adversely
impacted manufacturer subgroups for this rulemaking based on the
results of the industry characterization.
DOE analyzes the impacts on small businesses in a separate analysis
for the standards proposed in the NOPR published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register and in chapter 12 of the direct final
rule TSD. For a discussion of the impacts on the small business
manufacturer subgroup, see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the regulatory actions
of other Federal agencies and States that affect the manufacturers of a
covered product or equipment. While any one regulation may not impose a
significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of several
existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences for
some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry.
Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits
and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower
expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE
conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its
rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.
For the cumulative regulatory burden analysis, DOE examines
Federal, product-specific regulations that could affect consumer
clothes dryer manufacturers that take effect approximately 3 years
before or after the 2028 compliance date. This information is presented
in Table V.29.
Table V.29--Compliance Dates and Expected Conversion Expenses of Federal Energy Conservation Standards Affecting Consumer Clothes Dryer Original
Equipment Manufacturers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of OEMs Industry Industry conversion
Federal energy conservation standard Number of OEMs affected by Approx. standards conversion costs costs/equipment
* today's rule ** compliance year (Millions) revenue ***(%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portable Air Conditioners 85 FR 1378 (January 10, 2020)... 9 2 2025 $320.9 (2015$) 6.7
Residential Clothes Washers [dagger]88 FR 13520 (March 3, 19 14 2027 $690.8 (2021$) 5.2
2023)....................................................
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products [dagger]88 FR 19382 38 5 2029 $126.9 (2021$) 3.1
(March 31, 2023).........................................
Automatic Commercial Ice Makers [dagger]88 FR 30508 (May 23 1 2027 $15.9 (2022$) 0.6
11, 2023)................................................
Dishwashers [dagger]88 FR 32514 (May 19, 2023)............ 21 12 2027 $125.6 (2021$) 2.1
[[Page 18223]]
Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines 5 1 2028 $1.5 (2022$) 0.2
[dagger]88 FR 33968 (May 25, 2023).......................
Room Air Conditioners 88 FR 34298 (May 26, 2023).......... 8 4 2026 $24.8 (2021$) 0.4
Microwave Ovens 88 FR 39912 (June 20, 2023)............... 18 11 2026 $46.1 (2021$) 0.7
Consumer Water Heaters [dagger]88 FR 49058 (July 28, 2023) 22 3 2030 $228.1 (2022$) 1.3
Commercial Water Heating Equipment 88 FR 69686 (October 6, 15 1 2026 $42.7 (2022$) 5.3
2023)....................................................
Commercial Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 83 4 2028 $226.4 (2022$) 1.6
Freezers [dagger]88 FR 70196 (October 10, 2023)..........
Dehumidifiers [dagger]88 FR 76510 (November 6, 2023)...... 20 3 2028 $6.9 (2022$) 0.4
Consumer Furnaces 88 FR 87502 (December 18, 2023)......... 15 1 2029 $162.0 (2022$) 1.8
Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers 89 FR 63 11 [Dagger] 2029 and $830.3 (2022$) 1.3
3026 (January 17, 2024).................................. 2030
Consumer Conventional Cooking Products 89 FR 11434 35 8 2028 $66.7 (2022$) 0.3
(February 14, 2024)......................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This column presents the total number of OEMs identified in the energy conservation standard rule that is contributing to cumulative regulatory
burden.
** This column presents the number of OEMs producing consumer clothes dryers that are also listed as OEMs in the identified energy conservation standard
that is contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of equipment revenue during the conversion period. Industry conversion costs are the
upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue from just the
covered product/equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs are made and lasts from the
publication year of a final rule to the compliance year of the energy conservation standard. The conversion period typically ranges from 3 to 5 years,
depending on the rulemaking.
[dagger] These rulemakings are at the NOPR stage, and all values are subject to change until finalized through publication of a final rule.
[Dagger] For the refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers energy conservation standards direct final rule, the compliance year (2029 or 2030)
varies by product class.
As shown in Table V.29, the rulemakings with the largest overlap of
consumer clothes dryer OEMs include residential clothes washers,
consumer conventional cooking products, dishwashers, refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and miscellaneous refrigeration
products, which are all part of the multi-product Joint Agreement
submitted by interested parties.\119\ As detailed in the Joint
Agreement, the signatories indicated that their recommendations should
be considered a ``complete package.'' The signatories further stated
that ``each part of this agreement is contingent upon the other parts
being implemented.'' (Joint Agreement, No. 55, p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ The microwave ovens energy conservation standards final
rule (88 FR 39912), which has 11 overlapping OEMs, was published
prior to the joint submission of the multi-product Joint Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The multi-product Joint Agreement states the ``jointly recommended
compliance dates will achieve the overall energy and economic benefits
of this agreement while allowing necessary lead-times for manufacturers
to redesign products and retool manufacturing plants to meet the
recommended standards across product categories.'' (Joint Agreement,
No. 55 at p. 2) The staggered compliance dates help mitigate
manufacturers' concerns about their ability to allocate sufficient
resources to comply with multiple concurrent amended standards and
about the need to align compliance dates for products that are
typically designed or sold as matched pairs (such as residential
clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers). See section IV.J.3 of
this document for stakeholder comments about cumulative regulatory
burden. See Table V.30 for a comparison of the estimated compliance
dates based on EPCA-specified timelines and the compliance dates
detailed in the Joint Agreement.
Table V.30--Expected Compliance Dates for Multi-Product Joint Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
compliance
Rulemaking year based on Compliance year in
EPCA the joint agreement
requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Clothes Dryers........... 2027 2028
Residential Clothes Washers....... 2027 2028
Consumer Conventional Cooking 2027 2028
Products.
[[Page 18224]]
Dishwashers....................... 2027 2027 *
Refrigerators, Refrigerator- 2027 2029 or 2030
Freezers, and Freezers. depending on the
product class.
Miscellaneous Refrigeration 2029 2029
Products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Estimated compliance year. The Joint Agreement states, ``3 years after
the publication of a final rule in the Federal Register.'' (Joint
Agreement, No. 55 at p. 2)
3. National Impact Analysis
This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy
savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of
the TSLs considered as potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended
standards for consumer clothes dryers, DOE compared clothes dryer
energy consumption under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated
energy consumption under each TSL. The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period that begins
in the year of anticipated compliance with amended standards (2027-
2056).\120\ Table V.31 presents DOE's projections of the national
energy savings for each TSL considered for consumer clothes dryers. The
savings were calculated using the approach described in section IV.H.2
of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is
2028-2057.
Table V.31--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Consumer Clothes Dryers; 30 Years of Shipments (2027-2056) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial Standard Level
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quads
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy.......................................... 0.55 1.53 2.57 3.41 9.42 9.47
FFC energy.............................................. 0.57 1.58 2.66 3.52 9.70 9.76
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028-2057.
OMB Circular A-4 requires agencies to present analytical results
including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and costs that
show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4 also
directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements underlying
the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, DOE undertook
a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather than 30 years, of product
shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy for the timeline in
EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation standards and
potential revision of and compliance with such revised standards.\121\
The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally not synchronized
with the product lifetime, product manufacturing cycles, or other
factors specific to consumer clothes dryers. Thus, such results are
presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any
change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES sensitivity analysis
results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented in Table
V.32. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of consumer clothes
dryers purchased during the period 2027-2035.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at least once
every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 3-year period
after any new standard is promulgated before compliance is required,
except that in no case may any new standards be required within 6
years of the compliance date of the previous standards. While adding
a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years,
DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6-
year period and that the 3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-
year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate given
the variability that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and
the fact that for some products, the compliance period is 5 years
rather than 3 years.
\122\ The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is
2028-2036.
Table V.32--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Consumer Clothes Dryers; 9 Years of Shipments (2027-2035) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial Standard Level
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quads
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy.......................................... 0.19 0.54 0.92 1.17 2.80 2.81
[[Page 18225]]
FFC energy.............................................. 0.20 0.56 0.96 1.21 2.89 2.90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028-2036.
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for consumer
clothes dryers. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory
analysis, DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent
real discount rate. Table V.33 shows the consumer NPV results with
impacts counted over the lifetime of products purchased during the
period 2027-2056.
Table V.33--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Consumer Clothes Dryers; 30 Years of Shipments (2027-2056) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial Standard Level
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
billion 2022$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent............................................... 4.07 12.33 20.08 19.85 31.21 30.50
7 percent............................................... 1.92 5.88 9.23 8.42 9.03 8.58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028-2057.
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical
period are presented in Table V.34. The impacts are counted over the
lifetime of products purchased during the period 2027-2035. As
mentioned previously, such results are presented for informational
purposes only and are not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical
methodology or decision criteria.
Table V.34 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Consumer Clothes Dryers; 9 Years of Shipments (2027-2035) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial Standard Level
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
billion 2022$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent............................................... 1.78 5.46 9.08 8.80 13.64 13.41
7 percent............................................... 1.07 3.31 5.28 4.77 5.69 5.49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028-2036.
The previous results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate
the change in price for consumer clothes dryers over the analysis
period (see section IV.F.1 of this document). DOE also conducted a
sensitivity analysis that considered one scenario with a lower rate of
price decline than the reference case and one scenario with a higher
rate of price decline than the reference case. The results of these
alternative cases are presented in appendix 10C of the direct final
rule TSD. In the high-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer benefits
is higher than in the default case. In the lower-price-decline case,
the NPV of consumer benefits is lower than in the default case.
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
DOE estimates that amended energy conservation standards for
consumer clothes dryers will reduce energy expenditures for consumers
of those products, with the resulting net savings being redirected to
other forms of economic activity. These expected shifts in spending and
economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As described in
section IV.N of this document, DOE used an input/output model of the
U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that
DOE considered. There are uncertainties involved in projecting
employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the
analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes
(2027-2033),\123\ where these uncertainties are reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is
2028-2034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results suggest that the adopted standards are likely to have a
negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net
change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national
labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on
employment. Chapter 16 of the direct final rule TSD presents detailed
results regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
[[Page 18226]]
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
As discussed in section III.E.1.d of this document, DOE has
concluded that the standards adopted in this direct final rule will not
lessen the utility or performance of the consumer clothes dryers under
consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products
currently offer units that meet or exceed the adopted standards.
In response to the August 2022 NOPR, AHAM stated that DOE must
ensure that amended standards do not lengthen cycle times, and AHAM
believes that in order to achieve the test procedure's current FMC
requirement and meet the standards proposed in the August 2022 NOPR,
cycle lengths will get longer. Whirlpool commented that the strategies
used in consumer clothes dryers certified under appendix D2 often lower
the overall average drying temperature and extend the drying time to
increase the CEF, while minimally compliant consumer clothes dryers
certified under appendix D1 typically achieve a higher overall
temperature and shorten the drying process. Citing DOE's test sample,
Whirlpool stated that models certified using appendix D1 without
wrinkle prevention mode activated had an average drying time of 56
minutes when tested to appendix D2, while models certified using
appendix D2 had an average drying time of 66 minutes, and ENERGY STAR-
qualified products had an average drying time of 71 minutes, the
additional time needed to meet the 2-percent FMC requirement. Whirlpool
stated that DOE's statutory criteria are not met to proceed with the
standards proposed in the August 2022 NOPR due to a clear lessening of
performance and utility of the product associated with longer drying
times. (AHAM, No. 46 at pp. 8-10; Whirlpool, No. 53 at p. 4)
DOE's test data do not support the assertion by AHAM and Whirlpool
that amended standards would necessitate longer drying times. In DOE's
test sample, the consumer clothes dryers certified under appendix D1
have an average cycle time of 61 minutes when tested in accordance with
appendix D2. In comparison, among the units in DOE's test sample that
are certified under appendix D2 at or above the amended standard,
multiple units have a cycle time less than 60 minutes. This indicates
that the standards adopted by this direct final rule will not
necessitate any increase in cycle time compared to typical cycle times
currently associated with baseline consumer clothes dryers. DOE notes
that a 60-minute cycle time is notably less than the 80-minute cycle
time required for ENERGY STAR qualification.\124\ DOE further notes
that cycle time is one of many product attributes that consumers
consider when purchasing a clothes dryer, such as drying performance
and fabric care. As further examples, Consumer Reports--which DOE
recognizes is one popular resource for consumers seeking independent
reviews of consumer products--highlights the following product
attributes for consumer clothes dryers in addition to cycle time:
drying performance, ergonomics, noise level, capacity, drum material,
compatibility with a drying rack, availability of custom programs,
availability of a steam option, moisture sensing capability, Wifi
connectivity, and stackability with an accompanying clothes
washer.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ ENERGY STAR criteria for consumer clothes dryers can be
found at: www.energystar.gov/products/appliances/clothes_dryers/key_product_criteria.
\125\ Consumer Reports ratings of consumer clothes dryers
available at www.consumerreports.org/appliances/clothes-dryers (last
accessed February 5, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in section IV.H.2 of this document, DOE has observed a
steady decline in annual consumer clothes dryer cycles over the past 15
years, despite the implementation of more stringent consumer clothes
dryer energy conservation standards, which is an indication that
consumers are not rerunning their clothes dryers. Additionally, the
amended standards correspond to the current ENERGY STAR efficiency
level for both electric and gas standard clothes dryers, which requires
testing in accordance with appendix D2 and which ensures consumer-
accepted dryness levels as discussed in section II.B.2 of this
document. As noted above, DOE does not expect increased cycle times
compared to typical cycle times currently associated with baseline
consumer clothes dryers as a result of adopted standards. In addition,
DOE does not expect consumers to re-run the consumer clothes dryer upon
completion of the initial run as a result of the amended standards
being adopted in this direct final rule. DOE therefore does not expect
a lessening in performance or utility as a result of the standards
adopted by this direct final rule. As previously discussed, on February
14, 2024, DOE received a second joint statement from the same group of
stakeholders that submitted the Joint Agreement in which the
signatories reaffirmed the standards recommended in the Joint
Agreement.\126\ In particular, the letter states that DOE's test data
show, and industry experience agrees, that the recommended standard
levels for consumer clothes dryers will not result in significant
differences in cycle time and will adequately dry clothes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool stated that due to the core technological differences in
energy-saving heat pump clothes dryers (such as lower air temperatures,
heat retention, and water condensing systems) compared to conventional
resistive heater clothes dryers, harder-to-dry fabrics need additional
time in a heat pump clothes dryer to remove their embedded moisture and
some heat pump clothes dryers may not get down to the required FMC.
(Whirlpool, No. 53 at pp. 12-13)
With regard to Whirlpool's concerns about the performance of heat
pump clothes dryers for certain hard-to-dry fabrics, DOE notes that the
standards adopted by this direct final rule do not require the use of
heat pump technology. AHAM stated that longer consumer clothes dryer
cycle times may create different cycle times between clothes washers
and clothes dryers, which may result in different consumer behaviors.
According to AHAM, different operating times in laundry products may
result in the increased use of wrinkle control cycles or redrying loads
to avoid wrinkled clothes resulting from the clothes sitting in the
clothes dryer for more extended periods of time, or in consumers re-
washing clothes that were not transferred to the clothes dryer due to a
previous load still being dried, ultimately resulting in increased
water and energy use. AHAM also stated that consumers could turn to
using other cycles, thus undercutting savings designed to be achieved
through use of the normal cycle. AHAM and Whirlpool therefore stated
that DOE should evaluate the impact of amended standards on drying
times as cycle length is a performance feature associated with consumer
preferences that consumers are unlikely to accept if cycles are too
long and do not match washing times. AHAM also disagreed with DOE's use
of the maximum drying time of 80 minutes in the current ENERGY STAR
specification as a benchmark for its analysis, asserting that the
specification was not based on sufficient supporting or consumer-
relevant data. (AHAM, No. 46 at pp. 8-10)
As previously stated, DOE does not expect a shift in consumer
drying times associated with amended standards beyond what is typically
experienced by consumers of baseline consumer clothes dryers.
Additionally, DOE does not expect that the amended standards
[[Page 18227]]
would result in longer drying cycles given the prevalence on the market
of consumer clothes dryers that meet the amended standard with cycle
times comparable to those of current baseline models, regardless of the
longer cycle time of 80 minutes allowed in the ENERGY STAR
specification. Therefore, DOE has no basis to conclude that the amended
standards would alter the existing relative cycle times between
consumer clothes dryers and clothes washers.
The test data presented in the August 2022 NOPR contradict certain
conclusions and presumptions made by DOE in previous rulemakings with
regard to cycle times. In particular, in a NOPR published on August 13,
2020 (``August 2020 NOPR''), which preceded the December 2020 Final
Rule, DOE stated its presumption that the shortest possible cycle times
currently available on the market represent the models for which
certain manufacturers have prioritized cycle time while maintaining
adequate drying performance and other performance aspects of consumer
clothes dryers; and that based on this presumption, the current energy
conservation standards may have discouraged manufacturers from bringing
models to the market with cycle times of 30 minutes or less. 85 FR
49297, 49305 reiterated at 85 FR 81359, 81361. DOE further asserted
that offering products with shorter cycle times would require more per-
cycle energy use than would be permitted under the current standards in
order to maintain the same level of performance in other areas. 85 FR
49297, 49299.
DOE has determined, contrary to the August 2020 NOPR's assumptions,
that current energy conservation standards have not prevented the sale
of consumer clothes dryers with shorter cycle times. DOE's test data
presented in the August 2022 NOPR indicate no discernable correlation
between efficiency level and cycle time for vented electric standard
dryers or vented gas clothes dryers (i.e., the consumer clothes dryer
product classes subject to the December 2020 Final Rule) Indeed, for
vented electric standard clothes dryers, the most efficient model in
DOE's test sample has a shorter cycle time (80 minutes) than the least
efficient minimally-compliant model in DOE's test sample (98 minutes).
The models with the lowest cycle times of 36 and 39 minutes both
achieve higher efficiency level EL 3. Similarly, for vented gas clothes
dryers, the most efficient model in DOE's test sample has a cycle time
of 66 minutes, substantially similar to the baseline unit with a cycle
time of 65 minutes. The models with the lowest cycle times of 35 and 36
minutes both achieve higher efficiency level EL 2. Based on this data,
DOE reaches a different conclusion than was reached in the December
2020 Final Rule. In particular, noting that DOE's data show no
discernable correlation between efficiency and cycle time, this data
does not support DOE's prior assertion that the current consumer
clothes dryer energy conservation standards may be precluding
manufacturers from bringing models to the market with substantially
shorter cycle times, or DOE's prior presumption that offering products
with shorter cycle times would require more per-cycle energy use than
would be permitted under the current standards.
Furthermore, in the second joint statement submitted February 14,
2024, by the signatories of the Joint Agreement, the signatories
acknowledge that DOE's investigative testing shows that there is no
significant difference in cycle time between consumer clothes dryers in
DOE's data set that are less efficient than the recommended standards
and those that just meet the recommended standard levels. The
signatories noted, for example, that the difference in average cycle
time is only about 2 minutes between electric standard clothes dryers
in DOE's data set that are less efficient than the recommended standard
and those that just meet the recommended standard (with CEFs of 3.93
and 3.94). Moreover, the signatories stated that the electric standard
clothes dryers in DOE's data set that are less efficient than the
recommended standards include models with longer cycle times than those
that meet the recommended standards, suggesting that cycle time is tied
to more than efficiency alone.
Finally, for the reasons previously discussed, DOE has also
determined that the standards adopted in this direct final rule will
not result in any significant differences in drying cycle times.
AHAM and Whirlpool commented that longer cycle times also cause
more wear and tear on clothing as well as on the product itself and can
decrease the lifetime of the product and increase the need for repair.
Whirlpool stated that longer cycles lead to consumer perception that
their clothes are being damaged and potentially lead consumers to
interrupt consumer clothes dryer cycles to prevent garment damage,
depending on different fabric types/thicknesses. Whirlpool commented
that when presented with the concept of a lower-heat and slower-drying
cycle that would save energy, consumers were not enthusiastic and did
not trust that such a drying strategy would prevent garment damage or
match clothes washer cycle times. Whirlpool stated that, according to
its provided research focused on thread removal counts on test cloth,
there is the possibility of increased fabric damage with longer drying
times when the test cloth is in a semi-saturated state. Whirlpool
commented that every 30 minutes of drying time for semi-saturated
fabric is equivalent to 2.4 times the amount of fabric damage that
would have been seen with one complete wash cycle in a front-load
clothes washer. Whirlpool commented that this research showed 17-
percent thread removal from 7 minutes of drying under appendix D1
testing and 40-percent thread removal from 30 minutes of drying under
appendix D2 testing. Whirlpool stated that according to these results,
appendix D2 testing resulted in a longer drying time in which the test
cloth was in a semi-saturated state, as well as 2.4 times the fabric
damage as a consumer clothes dryer cycle under appendix D1 testing.
According to Whirlpool, the longer the drying cycle is drawn out at
lower temperatures, the more total friction and thread removal occurs
as the semi-saturated clothes rub together when tumbling in the drum.
Whirlpool asserted that fabric care is partially a story of cycle
temperature and mechanical damage from extended drying times, and
although there may be some benefit from lower temperatures, the
potentially increased mechanical damage from longer cycles cannot be
ignored, nor the additional cost burden associated with consumers
replacing damaged or worn clothing that was not factored into DOE's
analysis. AHAM stated that manufacturers would also have to plan for
increased wear and tear on the product itself with more robust
components; therefore, AHAM disagreed with DOE's conclusion that repair
and maintenance costs would not change with the proposed standard. Both
AHAM and Whirlpool stated that DOE should account for the impacts of
energy conservation standards associated with increased drying times on
fabric care and the additional cost burden in its analysis. (AHAM, No.
46 at pp. 9-10; Whirlpool, No. 53 at p. 5)
The fabric care data Whirlpool shared shows increased thread
removal from drying under appendix D2 testing compared to testing under
appendix D1 for the same unit, which according to Whirlpool is due to
longer drying times when the test cloth is in a semi-saturated state.
However, DOE notes that amended standards would not require any
specific drying strategy (e.g., longer cycle times, longer drying time
at
[[Page 18228]]
the semi-saturated state, lower drying temperatures) to ensure the FMC
requirement or amended standards are met nor preclude shorter drying
times at the semi-saturated state. Additionally, DOE notes that this
testing did not compare the thread removal from drying for units with
different efficiencies, but rather the same unit tested under two
different tests, so DOE is not aware of any data substantiating a
correlation between increased efficiency and thread removal. As
previously noted, appendix D2 accounts for all consumer clothes dryers
with and without automatic termination control and is therefore more
representative of consumer use than appendix D1, and depending on the
automatic termination control system, the appendix D2 cycle time may be
longer or shorter than that when testing in accordance with appendix
D1. Furthermore, DOE is not aware of any information indicating that
the higher efficiency levels associated with amended standards would
increase cycle time beyond what is typically experienced by consumers
of baseline consumer clothes dryers, and has determined that existing
cycle times can be met with consumer clothes dryers capable of meeting
the amended standards. Therefore, DOE has concluded the recommend
standards that are the subject of this direct final rule would not
result in increased impacts on fabric care and product wear and tear as
AHAM and Whirlpool suggested. Additionally, DOE notes that AHAM
recommended the efficiency levels proposed in the August 2022 NOPR for
adoption in this direct final rule. DOE, however, will continue to
review relevant data on potential impacts on fabric care and product
wear and tear and may consider it in future rulemakings.
For the reasons discussed throughout this section and based on the
additional confirming statements from the Joint Agreement signatories,
DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this direct final rule
will not lessen the utility or performance of the consumer clothes
dryers under consideration in this rulemaking.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to
result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section III.E.1.e
of this document, EPCA directs the Attorney General of the United
States (``Attorney General'') to determine the impact, if any, of any
lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and
to transmit such determination in writing to the Secretary within 60
days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis
of the nature and extent of the impact. To assist the Attorney General
in making this determination, DOE is providing the DOJ with copies of
this direct final rule and the TSD for review.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the
environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity
demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce
the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system,
particularly during peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the direct final
rule TSD presents the estimated impacts on electricity generating
capacity, relative to the no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE
considered in this rulemaking.
Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation
standards for consumer clothes dryers is expected to yield
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of certain air
pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table V.35 provides DOE's estimate of
cumulative emissions reductions expected to result from the TSLs
considered in this rulemaking. The emissions were calculated using the
multipliers discussed in section IV.K of this document. DOE reports
annual emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the direct
final rule TSD.
Table V.35--Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Consumer Clothes Dryers Shipped in 2027-2056 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial Standard Level
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Sector Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)............................... 11.2 30.8 51.5 66.5 170.9 171.7
CH4 (thousand tons)..................................... 0.7 2.0 3.3 4.4 12.0 12.1
N2O (thousand tons)..................................... 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.7 1.7
NOX (thousand tons)..................................... 6.4 17.4 29.3 36.6 87.6 88.0
SO2 (thousand tons)..................................... 2.9 8.3 13.6 18.7 52.4 52.7
Hg (tons)............................................... 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.36 0.36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upstream Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)............................... 1.2 3.3 5.6 7.0 17.7 17.8
CH4 (thousand tons)..................................... 114.0 309.4 524.3 657.1 1,633 1,642
N2O (thousand tons)..................................... 0.005 0.001 0.021 0.003 0.1 0.1
NOX (thousand tons)..................................... 18.9 51.6 87.3 110.0 276.5 277.9
SO2 (thousand tons)..................................... 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.0
Hg (tons)............................................... 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0005 0.0013 0.0013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total FFC Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)............................... 12.4 34.1 57.1 73.5 188.6 189.5
CH4 (thousand tons)..................................... 114.7 311.4 527.6 661.5 1,645 1,654
N2O (thousand tons)..................................... 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.6 1.7 1.7
NOX (thousand tons)..................................... 25.4 69.0 116.5 146.6 364.1 365.9
SO2 (thousand tons)..................................... 3.0 8.4 13.9 19.0 53.3 53.6
Hg (tons)............................................... 0.02 0.06 0.10 0.13 0.36 0.37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028-2057.
[[Page 18229]]
As part of the analysis for this rule, DOE estimated monetary
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2
that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for consumer clothes
dryers. Section IV.L of this document discusses the estimated SC-
CO2 values that DOE used. Table V.36 presents the value of
CO2 emissions reduction at each TSL for each of the SC-
CO2 cases. The time series of annual values is presented for
the selected TSL in chapter 14 of the direct final rule TSD.
Table V.36--Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for Consumer Clothes Dryers Shipped in 2027-2056 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC-CO2 case discount rate and statistics
---------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 3% 95th
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(million 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 136 565 876 1,718
2............................................... 376 1,559 2,415 4,739
3............................................... 613 2,566 3,985 7,800
4............................................... 808 3,353 5,197 10,192
5............................................... 2,012 8,435 13,115 25,622
6............................................... 2,022 8,479 13,183 25,753
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028-2057.
As discussed in section IV.L.2 of this document, DOE estimated the
climate benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of methane
and N2O that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs
for consumer clothes dryers. Table V.37 presents the value of the
CH4 emissions reduction at each TSL, and Table V.38 presents
the value of the N2O emissions reduction at each TSL. The
time series of annual values is presented for the selected TSL in
chapter 14 of the direct final rule TSD.
Table V.37--Present Value of Methane Emissions Reduction for Consumer Clothes Dryers Shipped in 2027-2056 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC-CH4 case discount rate and statistics
---------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 3% 95th
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(million 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 57 165 229 438
2............................................... 156 450 623 1,193
3............................................... 259 754 1,046 1,996
4............................................... 331 954 1,321 2,527
5............................................... 801 2,342 3,252 6,200
6............................................... 805 2,354 3,268 6,230
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028-2057.
Table V.38--Present Value of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reduction for Consumer Clothes Dryers Shipped in 2027-2056
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC-N2O case discount rate and statistics
---------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 3% 95th
5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(million 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 0.4 1.6 2.5 4.4
2............................................... 1.2 4.6 7.1 12.3
3............................................... 1.9 7.5 11.6 20.0
4............................................... 2.7 10.3 15.8 27.4
5............................................... 7.1 27.6 42.5 73.6
6............................................... 7.1 27.8 42.7 74.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028-2057.
DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the
global and U.S. economy continues to evolve rapidly. DOE, together with
other Federal agencies, will continue to review methodologies for
estimating the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other
GHG emissions. This ongoing
[[Page 18230]]
review will consider the comments on this subject that are part of the
public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other
methodological assumptions and issues. DOE notes, however, that the
adopted standards would be economically justified even without
inclusion of monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.
DOE also estimated the monetary value of the economic benefits
associated with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions
anticipated to result from the considered TSLs for consumer clothes
dryers. The dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are discussed in
section IV.L.2 of this document. Table V.39 presents the present value
for NOX emissions reductions for each TSL calculated using
7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, and Table V.40 presents similar
results for SO2 emissions reductions. The results in these
tables reflect application of EPA's low dollar-per-ton values, which
DOE used to be conservative. The time series of annual values is
presented for the selected TSL in chapter 14 of the direct final rule
TSD.
Table V.39--Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction for Consumer
Clothes Dryers Shipped in 2027-2056 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% Discount 3% Discount
TSL rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
million 2022$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 502 1,167
2....................................... 1,391 3,216
3....................................... 2,217 5,305
4....................................... 2,962 6,887
5....................................... 7,133 17,135
6....................................... 7,168 17,222
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Results are based on the low benefit-per-ton values.
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028-2057.
Table V.40--Present Value of SO2 Emissions Reduction for Consumer
Clothes Dryers Shipped in 2027-2056 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% Discount 3% Discount
TSL rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
million 2022$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 93 209
2....................................... 265 594
3....................................... 415 963
4....................................... 590 1,333
5....................................... 1,541 3,630
6....................................... 1,550 3,651
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is 2028-2057.
Not all the public health and environmental benefits from the
reduction of greenhouse gases, NOX, and SO2 are
captured in the values above, and additional unquantified benefits from
the reductions of those pollutants as well as from the reduction of
direct particulate matter (``PM'') and other co-pollutants may be
significant. DOE has not included monetary benefits of the reduction of
Hg emissions because the amount of reduction is very small.
7. Other Factors
The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No
other factors were considered in this analysis.
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
Table V.41 presents the NPV values that result from adding the
estimates of the economic benefits resulting from reduced GHG and
NOX and SO2 emissions to the NPV of consumer
benefits calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. The
consumer benefits are domestic U.S. monetary savings that occur as a
result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the
lifetime of products shipped during the period 2027-2056.\127\ The
climate benefits associated with reduced GHG emissions resulting from
the adopted standards are global benefits and are also calculated based
on the lifetime of consumer clothes dryers shipped during the period
2027-2056.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is
2028-2057.
\128\ Id.
Table V.41--Consumer NPV Combined With Present Value of Climate Benefits and Health Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case.................................. 5.6 16.7 27.2 29.2 54.8 54.2
3% Average SC-GHG case.................................. 6.2 18.2 29.7 32.4 62.8 62.2
2.5% Average SC-GHG case................................ 6.6 19.2 31.4 34.6 68.4 67.9
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case.......................... 7.6 22.1 36.2 40.8 83.9 83.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case.................................. 2.7 8.1 12.7 13.1 20.5 20.1
3% Average SC-GHG case.................................. 3.3 9.6 15.2 16.3 28.5 28.2
2.5% Average SC-GHG case................................ 3.6 10.6 16.9 18.5 34.1 33.8
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case.......................... 4.7 13.5 21.7 24.7 49.6 49.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Conclusion
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
[[Page 18231]]
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
For this direct final rule, DOE considered the impacts of amended
standards for consumer clothes dryers at each TSL, beginning with the
maximum technologically feasible 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.
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, 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.
It is important to recognize that while DOE is promulgating two
separate regulatory actions for energy efficiency standards for
residential clothes washers and consumer dryers, clothes washers and
dryers are complementary products, and they are sometimes sold and
purchased together as joint goods. This type of consumer purchasing
behavior is not typical of DOE energy efficiency standards. These
products are available in a variety of combinations and the efficiency
and/or product class of one product does not restrict the efficiency
and/or product class of the other. The efficiency levels are
independent of each other. Hence, DOE does not directly model the joint
purchasing decision of clothes washers and dryers in this rule. It is
possible that if only one machine fails, consumers could replace one
machine or could replace both machines jointly. If consumers replace
both machines when one fails, aggregate lifecycle costs would be the
combination of impacts as presented in both final rules.
Consumers value a variety of attributes in consumer clothes dryers.
These attributes can factor into consumer purchasing decisions along
with installation and operating cost. For example, DOE understands
certain consumers make purchasing decisions on non-efficiency
attributes such as color or other visual features such as control panel
layout, which may overlap with efficiency considerations related to and
a potential preference for mechanical over electronic controls.
One specific attribute related to the joint use of clothes washers
and dryers worth noting is the moisture content of clothes as consumers
wash and dry them. DOE recognizes that amended clothes washer standards
could result in less total moisture needing to be removed from the
clothing in a dryer, whereas amended clothes dryer standards could
result in a less energy-intensive process for removing that moisture.
As explained on page 99, the amended dryer test procedure in appendix
D2 includes incoming RMC values (i.e., a starting lower moisture
content for the load) that are more representative of the resulting
moisture content seen in high-efficiency clothes washers. Due to the
uniqueness of the Joint Recommendation where the clothes washer and
dryer proposals and compliance dates were aligned, the dryer rulemaking
encompasses these lower initial moisture values as a starting point for
the energy use analysis, so the effect of faster spin speeds resulting
in less ``wet'' clothes is already captured by DOE. The relative
comparison of efficiency levels for a given product would remain the
same, even if the baseline energy consumption were adjusted due to an
increase in efficiency in the complementary product.
General considerations for consumer welfare and preferences as well
as the special cases of complementary goods are areas DOE plans to
explore in a forthcoming RFI related to the agency's updates to its
overall analytic framework.
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 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. 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.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard,
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy conservation
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Sanstad, A. H. Notes on the Economics of Household Energy
Consumption and Technology Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf (last accessed July
1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer Clothes Dryer
Standards
Table V.42 and Table V.43 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
[[Page 18232]]
compliance with amended standards (2027-2056).\131\ The energy savings,
emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer to full-
fuel-cycle results. DOE is presenting monetized benefits of 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 this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ The analysis period for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL) is
2028-2057.
Table V.42--Summary of Analytical Results for Consumer Clothes Dryers TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings (quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads............................. 0.57 1.58 2.66 3.52 9.70 9.76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Monetized Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings... 4.3 12.7 21.1 28.8 77.4 77.8
Climate Benefits *................ 0.7 2.0 3.3 4.3 10.8 10.9
Health Benefits **................ 1.4 3.8 6.3 8.2 20.8 20.9
Total Benefits [dagger]........... 6.4 18.5 30.7 41.3 108.9 109.5
Consumer Incremental Product Costs 0.2 0.4 1.0 8.9 46.2 47.3
[Dagger].........................
Consumer Net Benefits............. 4.1 12.3 20.1 19.9 31.2 30.5
Total Net Benefits................ 6.2 18.2 29.7 32.4 62.8 62.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billions 2022$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 0.1 0.2 0.6 5.3 26.2 26.8
[Dagger].........................
Consumer Net Benefits............. 1.9 5.9 9.2 8.4 9.0 8.6
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 benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped during the period 2027-2056
for all TSLs except for TSL 3 and 2057 from the products shipped during the period 2028-2057.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. 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 IWG.
** 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. See section IV.L
of this document for more details.
[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.
Table V.43--Summary of Analytical Results for Consumer Clothes Dryers TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 * TSL 2 * TSL 3 * TSL 4 * TSL 5 * TSL 6 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No- 2,080.3-2,084.3...... 2,061.1-2,069.5 1,971.2-1,995.8 1,501.9-1,724.8 679.9-1,800.8 604.3-1,753.5
new-standards case INPV =
2,115.4).
Industry NPV (% change)........... (1.7)-(1.5).......... (2.6)-(2.2) (6.8)-(5.7) (29.0)-(18.5) (67.9)-(14.9) (71.4)-(17.1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18233]]
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 6, the
NPV of consumer benefit would be $8.6 billion using a discount rate of
7 percent, and $30.5 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 189.6 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 is $10.9 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 6 is $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 is $28.2
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 6 is $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 LCC impact on affected consumers is 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
[[Page 18234]]
electric compact (240V), and -$531 for ventless electric combination
washer-dryer. The simple PBP is 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 is 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 will experience a net
LCC cost, especially for senior households. DOE estimated that more 72
percent of senior-only households will experience a net LCC cost at TSL
6.
At TSL 6, the projected change in 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 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 takes 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 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, including low-income and senior-only households,
would experience a net cost given the current relatively high
incremental cost of certain consumer 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) are 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 as represented by the weighted average LCC
savings of $30. 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 concluded that TSL 6 is not
economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 5, which represents the maximum energy
savings with maximum positive NPV. TSL 5 corresponds 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 are 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 is $10.8 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 5 is $ 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 is $28.5
billion.
[[Page 18235]]
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated total NPV at TSL 5 is $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 is 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 is 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 is 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 will
experience a net LCC cost, especially for senior-only households. DOE
estimated that more than 71 percent of senior-only households will
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 a 11-percent drop in shipments in the
year the standard takes 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 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 are 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 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 are 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 is $4.3 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 4 is $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 is $16.3
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $32.4 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 4, the average LCC impact on affected consumers is 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 is 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 0 years for ventless electric combination
washer-dryer. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is
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 will
experience a net LCC cost, especially for senior households. DOE
estimated that about 45 percent of senior-only households will
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
[[Page 18236]]
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
amended standards.
At this level, DOE does not expect a notable drop in shipments in
the year the standard takes effect.
The Secretary 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 are 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 concluded that TSL 4
is not economically justified.
DOE then considered the Recommended TSL, which 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 are 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 is $3.3 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 3 is $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 is $15.2 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits
and costs, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended TSL is $29.7
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 the Recommended TSL, the average LCC impact on affected
consumers is 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 is 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 0
years for ventless electric combination washer-dryer. The fraction of
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 1 percent for electric
standard, 21 percent for PC 2, 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,
will 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
[[Page 18237]]
(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 direct final rule--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 provides 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.\132\ Based on the
information available, DOE concludes that no lessening of product
utility or performance would occur at the Recommended TSL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ 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 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 are positive. An estimated weighted
average of 2 percent of consumer clothes dryer consumers would
experience a net cost. The FFC national energy savings are significant
and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive using both a 3-percent and
7-percent discount rate. Notably, the benefits to consumers 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, is 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
amended energy conservation standards, DOE notes that as compared to
TSL 6, TSL 5, and TSL 4, the Recommended TSL has 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 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 result in a large
percentage of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost, in addition to
significant manufacturer 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 concluded they are economically justified, as discussed for the
Recommended TSL in the preceding paragraphs.
Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE adopts 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 above, DOE notes that the Recommended
TSL for consumer clothes dryers adopted in this direct final rule is
part of a multi-product Joint Agreement covering six rulemakings
(residential clothes washers; consumer clothes dryers;
[[Page 18238]]
consumer conventional cooking products; dishwashers; refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; and miscellaneous refrigeration
products). The signatories indicated 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 this document, many consumer clothes dryer OEMs also
manufacture residential clothes dryers; 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),\133\ the negotiated multi-product Joint Agreement staggers the
compliance dates for the five amended standards over a 4-year period
(2027-2030). In response to the August 2022 NOPR, AHAM expressed
concerns about the timing of ongoing home appliance rulemakings.
Specifically, AHAM commented that there are a number of ongoing
regulations that impact consumer clothes dryer manufacturers. (AHAM,
No. 46 at p. 13) AHAM has submitted similar comments to other ongoing
home appliance rulemakings.\134\ As AHAM is a key signatory of the
Joint Agreement, DOE understands that the compliance dates recommended
in the Joint Agreement would help reduce cumulative regulatory burden.
These compliance dates help relieve concern on the part of some
manufacturers about their ability to allocate sufficient resources to
comply with multiple concurrent amended standards and about the need to
align compliance dates for products that are typically designed or sold
as matched pairs. The Joint Agreement also provides additional years of
regulatory certainty for manufacturers and their suppliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ 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.
\134\ AHAM has submitted written comments regarding cumulative
regulatory burden for the other five rulemakings included in the
multi-product Joint Agreement. AHAM's written comments on cumulative
regulatory burden are available at: www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0464 (pp. 41-44) for residential clothes
washers; www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-2285 (pp.
44-47) for consumer conventional cooking products;
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0051 (pp. 21-24)
for dishwashers; www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003-0069 (pp. 20-22) for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers; and www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039-0031
(pp. 12-15) for miscellaneous refrigeration products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For residential clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers
specifically, aligned compliance dates would help reduce cumulative
regulatory burden for the 13 OEMs that manufacture both residential
clothes washers and consumer clothes dryers. In response to the August
2022 NOPR, AHAM commented that laundry products (RCWs and consumer
clothes dryers) are designed and used in pairs. (AHAM, No. 46 at p. 10)
AHAM stated that an additional design cycle for clothes washers and/or
clothes dryers may be necessary if the effective compliance dates for
the two products were out of sync. AHAM further stated that coordinated
compliance dates would greatly reduce burden on manufacturers and
retailers. (Id.)
The amended energy conservation standards for consumer clothes
dryers, which are expressed as CEFD2, are shown in Table
V.44.
Table V.44--Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes
Dryers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ft3 3.57
capacity)..............................................
(iv) Ventless Electric, Combination Washer-Dryer........ 2.33
(v) Vented Gas, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity).. 3.48
(vi) Ventless Electric, Compact (240V) (less than 4.4 2.68
ft3 capacity)..........................................
(vii) Vented Gas, Compact (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity).. 2.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEA, the Joint Commenters, and Samsung supported DOE's proposed
TSL 3, which aligns with the Recommended TSL in this direct final rule,
given the national energy savings, life-cycle cost savings, and
reasonable manufacturer impacts. According to the Joint Commenters, TSL
3 provides large cost savings for all consumer groups, including low-
income households. Samsung supported DOE's proposed TSL 3 and believes
the test sample adequately represents the current marketplace. (NEEA,
No. 45 at p. 2; Joint Commenters, No. 51 at p. 2; Samsung, No. 54 at p.
2)
NYSERDA also supported DOE's proposal in the August 2022 NOPR and
urged expedient adoption of the amended standards given significant LCC
savings, reasonable payback periods, significant GHG emissions
reductions, energy savings, and monetary benefits for consumers in New
York and beyond, and the aging out of a significant portion of the
installed dryer stock in New York. According to the 2019 New York
Residential Building Stock Assessment, 49 percent of New York consumer
clothes dryers are over 10 years old, and another 81 percent are 5
years or older. NYSERDA stated that based on DOE's assumption of a
product lifetime average of 14 years, a significant number of dryers in
New York will be due for replacement around the time of the new
standard, but only if DOE finalizes this standard promptly. (NYSERDA,
No. 48 at pp. 1-2)
While the California IOUs supported DOE's conclusion that TSL 3
represented an economically justified and technologically feasible
efficiency level achieving significant energy savings, the California
IOUs requested that DOE clarify the supporting data that led to the
conclusion that TSL 4 was not economically justified. The California
IOUs urged DOE to adopt TSL 3 at the earliest opportunity so that
consumers may obtain the significant savings provided from this level.
(California IOUs, No. 50 at pp. 1-2)
As previously stated, TSL 4 is not economically justified. Nearly
50 percent of electric standard clothes dryer users, including over 53
percent of senior-only households, would experience a net cost. This
can be
[[Page 18239]]
attributed to the high incremental cost of electric standard dryers
with the inlet air preheat technology efficiency level. Moreover, the
industry conversion costs for implementing TSL 4 could amount to $668
million, resulting in a substantial decrease in the manufacturer's
INPV. In addition, there is very little industry experience with inlet
air preheat designs. Currently, DOE is not aware of any consumer
clothes dryers on the market utilizing this design option. DOE's
shipments analysis estimates that approximately 7 percent of electric
standard shipments currently meet the efficiency required by TSL 4.
Implementing inlet air preheat for electric standard dryers would
represent a major overhaul of existing product lines and manufacturing
facilities.
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
The benefits and costs of the adopted standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022$) of the
benefits from operating products that meet the adopted 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.
Table V.45 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
adopted standards for consumer clothes dryers is $60.0 million per year
in increased equipment installed costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $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 amounts to $1,357 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the adopted standards for consumer clothes dryers is
$57.2 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $1,177 million in reduced operating
costs, $185.5 million from GHG reductions, and $349.4 million from
reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this case, the
net benefit amounts to $1,654 million per year.
Table--V.45 Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers
(the Recommended TSL)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2022$/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][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 in 2028-2057.
These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028-2057.
The Primary, Low-Net-Benefits, and High-Net-Benefits estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the
AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition,
incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a constant rate in the Low-
Net-Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High-Net-Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive
projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits
and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it
emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG
estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates
presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim
Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for 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 this document 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.
[[Page 18240]]
[Dagger][Dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national
impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's 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
this document and chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers'
pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA
produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the
present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital
expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry
weighted average cost of capital value of 7.5 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis
(see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost
of capital). For consumer clothes dryers, those values are -$12 million to -$10 million. DOE accounts for that
range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this
document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the
Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of
Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit 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 direct final rule to society, including potential changes
in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to
include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this direct final rule, the annualized net
benefits, using the primary estimate, would range from $1,642 million to $,1644 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.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14094
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) and
amended by E.O. 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' 88 FR 21879
(April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to
(1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts;
and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices
can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563
requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify
anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble,
this final regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this final regulatory action constitutes a
``significant regulatory action'' within the scope of section 3(f) of
E.O. 12866. DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the
underlying analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the final
regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a
quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the
underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an
explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the
identified potential alternatives. These assessments are summarized in
this preamble and further detail can be found in the technical support
document for this rulemaking.
B. 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 is not obligated to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
for this rulemaking because there is not a requirement to publish a
general notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative
Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603(a). As discussed previously,
DOE has determined that the Joint Agreement meets the necessary
requirements under EPCA to issue this direct final rule for energy
conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers under the procedures
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). DOE notes that the NOPR for energy
conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register contains a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of consumer clothes dryers must certify to DOE that
their products comply with any applicable energy conservation
standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their
products according to the DOE test procedures for consumer clothes
dryers, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE
has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping
requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial
equipment, including consumer clothes dryers. (See generally 10 CFR
part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement for the
certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This requirement has
been
[[Page 18241]]
approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting
burden for the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(``NEPA''), DOE has analyzed this rule in accordance with NEPA and
DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has
determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 10
CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1 because it is a rulemaking that
establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in B5.1(b)
apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that require further
environmental analysis, and it meets the requirements for application
of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE has
determined that promulgation of this rule is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the
meaning of NEPA, and does not require an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this rule and has determined
that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the
subject of this direct final rule. States can petition DOE for
exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria,
set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1)
clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies
any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and
burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5)
adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued
by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
this direct final rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
DOE has concluded that this direct final rule may require
expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by the private
sector. Such expenditures may include (1) investment in research and
development and in capital expenditures by consumer clothes dryer
manufacturers in the years between the direct final rule and the
compliance date for the new standards and (2) incremental additional
expenditures by consumers to purchase higher efficiency consumer
clothes dryers starting at the compliance date for the applicable
standard.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that
accompanies the direct final rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. This
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section and the TSD for this direct final
rule respond to those requirements.
Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is
required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives
[[Page 18242]]
of the rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing otherwise, or
the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. As
required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), this direct final rule establishes
amended energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers that
are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency
that DOE has determined to be both technologically feasible and
economically justified, as required by 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6295(o)(3)(B).
A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is presented in
chapter 17 of the TSD for this direct final rule.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
Although this direct final rule would not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution as defined, this
rule could impact a family's well-being. When developing a Family
Policymaking Assessment, agencies must assess whether: (1) the action
strengthens or erodes the stability or safety of the family and,
particularly, the marital commitment; (2) the action strengthens or
erodes the authority and rights of parents in the education, nurture,
and supervision of their children; (3) the action helps the family
perform its functions, or substitutes governmental activity for the
function; (4) the action increases or decreases disposable income or
poverty of families and children; (5) the proposed benefits of the
action justify the financial impact on the family; (6) the action may
be carried out by State or local government or by the family; and
whether (7) the action establishes an implicit or explicit policy
concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal
responsibility of youth, and the norms of society.
DOE has considered how the proposed benefits of this rule compare
to the possible financial impact on a family (the only factor listed
that is relevant to this final rule). As part of its rulemaking
process, DOE must determine whether the energy conservation standards
contained in this direct final rule are economically justified. As
discussed in section V.C.1 of this document, DOE has determined that
the standards are economically justified because the benefits to
consumers far outweigh the costs to manufacturers. Families will also
see LCC savings as a result of this final rule. Moreover, as discussed
further in section IV.I of this document, DOE's analysis estimated that
45 percent of low-income households who have a consumer clothes dryer
would experience a net benefit and 54 percent of low-income households
who have a consumer clothes dryer would have no impact under the
adopted standards. Further, the standards will also result in climate
and health benefits for families.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March
18, 1988), DOE has determined that this rule would not result in any
takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to
review most disseminations of information to the public under
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this direct final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has concluded that this regulatory action, which sets forth
amended energy conservation standards for consumer clothes dryers, is
not a significant energy action because the standards are not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects
on this direct final rule.
L. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan.
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and prepared a report describing that peer
review.\135\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the
productivity
[[Page 18243]]
and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. Because
available data, models, and technological understanding have changed
since 2007, DOE has engaged with the National Academy of Sciences to
review DOE's analytical methodologies to ascertain whether
modifications are needed to improve DOE's analyses. DOE is in the
process of evaluating the resulting report.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ The 2007 Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer
Review Report is available at energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last
accessed November 2021).
\136\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will
state that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has
determined that this action meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this direct
final rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
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 amends 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 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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. 2024-04765 Filed 3-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P