Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-04765

Rule2024-04765

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Clothes Dryers

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

March 12, 2024

Effective

July 10, 2024

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

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.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the docket are listed
in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058</a>. 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:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aaebdadac6c3cbc4c9cff9decbc4cecbd8ced9fbdfcfd9dec3c5c4d9eacfcf84cec5cf84cdc5dc">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ffaf1faedf8e6b1ecebfef1fbfeedfbecdfeaecfbf0f5b1f8f0e9">[email&#160;protected]</a> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a5b6a6a76737b74797f496e7b747e7b687e694b6f7f696e737574695a7f7f347e757f347d756c">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
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:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9dd0fce9e9f5f8eab3cefef5f3f8f4f9f8efddf5ecb3f9f2f8b3faf2eb">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0055">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0055</a>.
\4\ Available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0056">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0056</a>.
\5\ Available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0057">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0057</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In accordance with the direct final rule provisions at 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4), DOE has determined that the recommendations contained in
the Joint Agreement are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). As required
by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is also simultaneously publishing
elsewhere in this Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR'') that contains standards identical to those adopted in this
direct final rule. Consistent with the statute, DOE is providing a 110-
day public comment period on the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines that any comments received provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42
U.S.C. 6295(o) or any other applicable law, DOE will publish the
reasons for withdrawal and continue the rulemaking under the NOPR. (42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) See section II.A of this document for more
details on DOE's statutory authority.
The amended standards that DOE is adopting in this direct final
rule are the efficiency levels recommended in the Joint Agreement
(shown in Table I.1). The standards are expressed in terms of the
combined energy factor (``CEF<INF>D2</INF>''), 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 (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 13.9 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide
(``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 116.5 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 527.6 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.5 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.1 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\12\ The
estimated cumulative reduction in CO<INF>2</INF> emissions through 2030
amounts to 1.3 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from
the annual electricity use of more than 260 thousand homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\12\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023''). AEO2023 represents current Federal and
State legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the
time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for
further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that affect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of
methane (``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SC-N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of
GHG (``SC-GHG''). DOE used interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit
per ton of GHG avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (``IWG'').\13\ The derivation of
these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For
presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $3.3
billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and
it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February
2021 by the IWG. (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions, using benefit-per-ton estimates
from the Environmental Protection Agency,\14\ as discussed in section
IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health
benefits would be $2.6 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and
$6.3 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\15\ DOE is currently only
monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate
matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) concentrations from two precursors
(SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>), and from changes in ambient ozone
from one precursor (for NO<INF>X</INF>), but will continue to assess
the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from
reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing
Directly Emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors and
Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at <a href="http://www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors">www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors</a>.
\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 NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
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
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0049">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0049</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current standards are defined in terms of a minimum allowable
CEF, as measured according to appendix D1. Even though DOE maintained
the same energy efficiency descriptor for both appendix D1 and appendix
D2, DOE notes that the CEF values are not equivalent because of the
extensive differences in test methods.\21\ To avoid potential confusion
that would result from using the same efficiency descriptor for both
test procedures as it relates to the standards discussed in this
document, DOE is including a ``D1'' or ``D2'' subscript when referring
to the appendix D1 CEF and appendix D2 CEF, respectively
(``CEF<INF>D1</INF>'' and ``CEF<INF>D2</INF>'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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 CEF<INF>D1</INF>. (See 10 CFR
430.32(h)(3).) Appendix D1 tests timed drying cycles, and accounts for
clothes dryers with automatic termination controls by applying a higher
field use factor to units that have this feature. Appendix D2 tests
``normal'' automatic termination cycles and more accurately measures
the effects of automatic cycle termination.
EPCA authorizes DOE to design test procedures that measure energy
efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated annual operating cost
of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or
period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The appendix D2 test procedure,
which is required for use to demonstrate compliance with the amended
energy conservation standards established in this direct final rule,
measures the energy consumption of a representative use cycle that
dries a load of laundry from an initial moisture content of 57.5
percent to an FMC of less than 2 percent. 86 FR 56624-56625. For timer
clothes dryers, the test load is dried until the FMC is between 1 and
2.5 percent of the bone-dry weight of the test load. The measured
energy consumption is then normalized to determine the energy
consumption required to dry the test load to 2-percent FMC, with a
field use factor applied to account for the over-drying energy
consumption. For automatic termination control clothes dryers, appendix
D2 specifies that a ``normal'' program be selected for the test cycle,
and for clothes dryers that do not have a ``normal'' program, the cycle
recommended by the manufacturer for drying cotton or linen shall be
selected. If the drying temperature and drying level settings can be
chosen independently of the program, they shall be set at the maximum
drying temperature setting, and at a ``normal'' or ``medium'' dryness
level setting. The test is considered valid if the FMC of the test load
is 2 percent or less after the completion of the test cycle. If the FMC
is greater than 2 percent, the test is considered invalid and a new run
shall be conducted using the highest dryness level setting.
The current 2-percent FMC requirement using the DOE test cloth was
adopted as representative of approximately 5-percent FMC for ``real-
world'' clothing, based on data submitted in a joint petition for
rulemaking.\22\ DOE determined in the final rule published on August
14, 2013, that established the appendix D2 Test procedure that the
specified 2-percent FMC using the DOE test load was representative of
consumer expectations for dryness of clothing in field use. 78 FR
49608, 49620-49622, 49610-49611. DOE did not amend the FMC requirements
in the October 2021 TP Final Rule. 86 FR 56626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ The petition was submitted by AHAM, Whirlpool Corporation,
General Electric Company, Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc., BSH,
Alliance Laundry Systems, Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/
C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA
Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik,
Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and
DeLonghi, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Alliance to Save Energy, Alliance for Water Efficiency,
Northwest Power and Conservation Council, and Northeast Energy
Efficiency Partnerships, Consumer Federation of America and the
National Consumer Law Center. See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0054,
No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has conducted the rulemaking analysis for this direct final
rule based on CEF<INF>D2</INF> because compliance with the amended
energy conservation standards established in this direct final rule
must be determined based on the use of appendix D2. DOE discusses
additional details in section IV.C.1 of this document about how it
developed the engineering baseline, in terms of CEF<INF>D2</INF>, from
the current consumer clothes dryer standards that are in terms of
CEF<INF>D1</INF>.
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:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). 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
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0055">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0055</a>.

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
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). 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:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=50">https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=50</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058</a>. 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:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0058</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of consumer clothes
dryers. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis:
the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the efficiency
analysis) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency
level (i.e., the cost analysis). In determining the performance of
higher efficiency products, DOE considers technologies and design
option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each
product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the
incremental cost for the product/equipment at efficiency levels above
the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency-level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design-option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design-option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill''
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the ``max-tech'' level (particularly
in cases where the ``max-tech'' level exceeds the maximum efficiency
level currently available on the market).
For this direct final rule, DOE used an efficiency-level approach,
supplemented with reverse engineering. This approach involved first
testing and then physically disassembling a representative sample of
commercially available products, reviewing publicly available cost
information, and modeling equipment cost. From this information and
through the reverse engineering process, DOE estimated the manufacturer
production costs (``MPCs'') for a range of products currently available
on the market, considering the design options and the steps
manufacturers would likely take to reach a certain efficiency level. As
part of this analysis, DOE included test units that represent baseline
models, newly introduced units on the market, units with unique
configurations, and units with technologies as observed in the
technology assessment. The efficiency levels analyzed as part of this
engineering analysis are attainable using commercially available
clothes dryer technologies, or technologies that have been demonstrated
in working prototypes.
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each product/equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline
model as a reference point for each class, and measures changes
resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the
baseline. The baseline model in each product/equipment class represents
the characteristics of a product/equipment typical of that class (e.g.,
capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just
meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in
place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient
unit on the market.
The baseline clothes dryer efficiency levels for this direct final
rule differ from the existing energy conservation standards that were
established in the 2011 rulemaking analysis primarily due to the
difference between the then-current appendix D1, which DOE used to
evaluate products in the previous rulemaking, and the present version
of appendix D2, established in the October 2021 TP Final Rule and which
DOE used as the basis for this analysis. Appendix D2 includes test
methods that more accurately measure the effects of automatic cycle
termination and that may result in differences in the total measured
energy consumption of the test cycle as compared to the test methods in
appendix D1. Specifically, for automatic termination control dryers,
appendix D2 requires a lower FMC of the test load and does not rely on
a field use factor to account for the over-drying energy consumption,
instead requiring that the automatic termination drying program run to
the end of the cycle. Additionally, appendix D2 contains instructions
for the testing of timer dryers, which include a lower FMC of the test
load as compared to the version of appendix D1 used for the 2011
rulemaking analysis.
For the engineering analysis, DOE began by identifying the
efficiency level corresponding to the Federal minimum energy
conservation standards for each product class. Due to the test
procedure changes adopted in the October 2021 Final Rule, DOE
determined the baseline efficiency level representative of minimally
compliant products when tested under appendix D2. To identify the
appendix D2 baseline levels, DOE tested 22 models that were certified
as minimally compliant with the current energy conservation standards,
from across all product classes. Because certified performance data are
not available for models on the market tested in accordance with both
appendix D1 and appendix D2, DOE tested each basic model in its test
sample in accordance with appendix D1 and appendix D2 and used the test
values for appendix D2 to determine the baseline models in support of
this engineering analysis. Due to the differences in the two test
procedures previously described, the baseline CEF<INF>D2</INF> measured
using appendix D2 is numerically lower for each product class than the
corresponding CEF<INF>D1</INF> 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]]

CEF<INF>D2</INF> 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 CEF<INF>D2</INF> 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 CEF<INF>D1</INF> for comparison. As
discussed in section IV.C.1.a of this document, the baseline
CEF<INF>D2</INF> values estimated for the preliminary analysis are
lower than the current CEF<INF>D1</INF> 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)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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)

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)

[[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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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
<a href="http://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/">www.sec.gov/edgar/search/</a> (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 <a href="http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts.html">www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts.html</a> (last
accessed Feb. 1, 2022).
\49\ U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Wholesale Trade Survey. 2017.
Available at <a href="http://www.census.gov/wholesale/index.html">www.census.gov/wholesale/index.html</a> (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 <a href="http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/">www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/index.php?view=microdata">www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/index.php?view=microdata</a> (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 CEF<INF>D2</INF> (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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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 <a href="http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/index.html">www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/index.html</a> (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 <a href="http://www.bls.gov/ppi/">www.bls.gov/ppi/</a> (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 dir

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on March 12, 2024.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.