Energy Conservation Program: Review of DOE's Analytic Methods for Setting Energy Conservation Standards

• Citation: 91 FR 41578
• Published date: 07 July 2026
• FR Document: 2026-13673
• Pages: 41578-41591
• Section: Proposed rules
• Issuer: Energy Department

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

41578

Vol. 91, No. 128

Tuesday, July 7, 2026

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 430 and 431

[EERE–2022–BT–OT–0004]

Energy Conservation Program: Review

of DOE’s Analytic Methods for Setting

Energy Conservation Standards

AGENCY

: Office of Critical Minerals and

Energy Innovation, Department of

Energy.

ACTION

: Request for information and

request for comments.

SUMMARY

: The U.S. Department of

Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or the ‘‘Department’’)

requests comment regarding the

assumptions, models, and

methodologies that DOE uses in setting

energy conservation standards for

covered products and equipment.

Relatedly, DOE also requests comments

on the report summarizing the work

conducted by the National Academies of

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

(‘‘NASEM’’) Committee on Review of

Methods for Setting Building and

Equipment Performance Standards. DOE

also welcomes the submission of data,

peer-reviewed studies, and other

relevant information related to how

DOE might implement NASEM report

recommendations and to DOE’s

analytical methodology for evaluating

energy conservation standards in

general.

DATES

: Written comments and

information are requested and will be

accepted on or before September 8,

2026.

ADDRESSES

: Interested persons are

encouraged to submit comments using

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at

www.regulations.gov. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments.

Alternatively, interested persons may

submit comments, identified by docket

number EERE–2022–BT–OT–0004, by

any of the following methods:

(1) Email:

ASmethodreview2022OT0004@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number

EERE–2022–BT–OT–0004 in the subject

line of the message.

(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and

Equipment Standards Program, U.S.

Department of Energy, Building

Technologies Office, Mailstop CM–5B,

1000 Independence Avenue SW,

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If

possible, please submit all items on a

compact disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is

not necessary to include printed copies.

(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.

Department of Energy, Building

Technologies Office, Mailstop CM–5B,

1000 Independence Avenue SW,

Washington, DC 20585–0121.

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,

please submit all items on a CD, in

which case it is not necessary to include

printed copies.

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be

accepted. For detailed instructions on

submitting comments and additional

information on this process, see section

V of this document (Submission of

Comments).

Docket: The docket for this activity,

which includes Federal Register

notices, comments, and other

supporting documents/materials, is

available for review at

www.regulations.gov. All documents in

the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov index. However,

some documents listed in the index,

such as those containing information

that is exempt from public disclosure,

may not be publicly available.

The docket web page can be found at

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2022-BT-OT-

0004. The docket web page contains

instructions on how to access all

documents, including public comments,

in the docket. See section V for

information on how to submit

comments through

www.regulations.gov. The docket for the

related proceeding to consider updates

to DOE’s Procedures, Interpretations

and Policies for Consideration of New or

Revised Energy Conservation Standards

for Consumer Products is available at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-

2025-BT-STD-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

:

Appliance Standards Program, U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Critical

Minerals and Energy Innovation, CM–

5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov.

Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of the General Counsel,

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,

Washington, DC 20585–0121.

Telephone: (202) 586–4798. Email:

Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov.

For further information on how to

submit a comment or review other

public comments and the docket,

contact the Appliance and Equipment

Standards Program staff at (202) 287–

1445 or by email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Authority

A. Statutory Requirements

B. Evaluation of Statutory Requirements

III. Recommendations From the NASEM

Report and DOE’s Solicitation for

Comments

A. Problem Statement and Market Failure

1. Uncertainty and Variability

B. Technology Assessment

C. Key Considerations for Economic

Justification Pursuant to EPCA

1. Consumer Effects

2. Manufacturer Effects

3. Life-Cycle Cost and Energy Savings

4. Market Effects

5. Emissions

D. Data Collection

E. Effects on Power Systems

IV. Summary of Analysis-Related Topics

Raised in Comments on the Process Rule

RFI

V. Additional Analytic Topics

A. Repair and Installation Cost

Assumptions

B. Modeling Retirement and Replacement

C. Analytic Timeline

D. Baseline

E. Methodological Support of 42 U.S.C.

6295(o) Analysis

VI. Submission of Comments

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Background

The Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is

seeking information and public

comment related to the agency’s

forthcoming update of the analytic

framework used to carry out

requirements in the Energy Policy

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291, et

seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’). For example, under 42

U.S.C. 6295(o), DOE utilizes this

analytic framework to address

statutorily required criteria for

prescribing new or amended energy

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

41579

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

1

The NASEM Report is available at

www.nap.edu/catalog/25992/review-of-methods-

used-by-the-us-department-of-energy-in-setting-

appliance-and-equipment-standards.

2

See www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2025-BT-

STD-0001.

3

See www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/

2025/03/OSTP-Guidance-for-GSS-June-2025.pdf.

4

See https://www.energy.gov/cmei/articles/

building-technologies-office-bto-peer-review-2007.

conservation standards (‘‘ECS’’). DOE is

also proposing updates to the

Department’s ‘‘Procedures,

Interpretations, and Policies for

Consideration of New or Revised Energy

Conservation Standards and Test

Procedures for Consumer Products and

Certain Commercial/Industrial

Equipment’’ at 10 CFR part 430, subpart

C, appendix A (‘‘appendix A’’ or

‘‘Process Rule’’). This analytic

framework request for information

(‘‘RFI’’) is a separate but related action

to address analytic methodology in

greater technical detail. More

specifically, DOE is issuing this analytic

framework RFI to solicit comment on

DOE’s analytical methodologies that

support execution of the Process Rule.

On December 18, 2017, DOE

published in the Federal Register an

RFI on the Process Rule. 82 FR 59992.

In response to that Process Rule RFI,

DOE received a variety of comments

regarding, among other things, its

analytical methodologies. These

comments were addressed in a notice of

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’)

regarding that Process Rule that DOE

published in the Federal Register on

February 13, 2019. 84 FR 3910, 3936–

3938. The Department decided that

conducting an additional peer review of

the analytical methods used in its

energy conservation standards

rulemakings would be beneficial in

evaluating these comments and

determining what improvements, if any,

could be made to its analytical

methodologies. Id. DOE chose the

National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine (‘‘NASEM’’)

to conduct the peer review and entered

into a contract with NASEM on July 15,

2019. NASEM completed the peer

review and transmitted to DOE its

report, ‘‘Review of Methods Used by the

U.S. Department of Energy in Setting

Appliance and Equipment Standards,’’

(‘‘NASEM Report’’) on January 7, 2022.

1

On April 17, 2025, DOE published in

the Federal Register an RFI seeking

comments and information from

interested parties to assist DOE in

identifying potential modifications to its

Process Rule. 90 FR 16093. In this 2025

Process Rule RFI, DOE noted that it

intends to more closely review the

assumptions, models, and

methodologies used in setting energy

conservation standards for consumer

products and equipment. Many of these

topics were addressed in the report

issued by NASEM and have been the

subject of comments submitted by

stakeholders in recent energy

conservation standards rulemakings.

DOE stated that the recommendations in

the NASEM report, as well as other

conceptual considerations, will be

considered by DOE in a separate RFI,

which will more specifically request

stakeholder comments on those topics.

In the 2026 Process Rule NOPR, DOE

summarizes comments received in

response to the RFI for the 2026 Process

Rule that relate to analytic

methodology.

2

This analytic framework

RFI represents the follow-up request for

comments that was previously

described by DOE and is referenced in

the 2026 Process Rule NOPR.

For ease of use, this RFI is organized

based on the findings and

recommendations contained in the

NASEM report and on the topics raised

in stakeholder comments that DOE has

received related to its analytical

methodologies that were submitted as

part of its 2025 Process Rule RFI. DOE

seeks comment on how to appropriately

consider actions that are consistent with

the requirements of EPCA and are

responsive to the NASEM report

recommendations, as well as aligning

with Executive Orders 12866, 14154,

and 14303, OMB Circular A–4, and

related guidance which are discussed in

the paragraphs that follow.

There are multiple Executive Orders

with which this effort is consistent. On

January 20, 2025, the President issued

Executive Order 14154, ‘‘Unleashing

American Energy’’ (E.O. 14154). 90 FR

8353 (Jan. 29, 2025). The Executive

order stated the policy of the United

States with regard to energy production

and management. Among the stated

elements of this policy at sections 2(f)-

(h) of E.O. 14154 are to safeguard the

American people’s freedom to choose

from a variety of goods and appliances,

including but not limited to lightbulbs,

dishwashers, washing machines, gas

stoves, water heaters, toilets, and

showerheads, and to promote market

competition and innovation within the

manufacturing and appliance industries;

to ensure that the global effects of a rule,

regulation, or action shall, whenever

evaluated, be reported separately from

its domestic costs and benefits, in order

to promote sound regulatory decision

making and prioritize the interests of

the American people; and to guarantee

that all executive departments and

agencies provide opportunity for public

comment and rigorous, peer-reviewed

scientific analysis.

On May 23, 2025, the President issued

Executive Order 14303, ‘‘Restoring Gold

Standard Science.’’ 90 FR 22601 (May

29, 2025). Section 3 of that Executive

order instructed the Director of the

Office of Science and Technology Policy

(‘‘OSTP’’) to issue guidance for agencies

on implementation of ‘‘Gold Standard

Science,’’ meaning science that is

reproducible; transparent;

communicative of error and uncertainty;

collaborative and interdisciplinary;

skeptical of findings and assumptions;

structured for falsifiability of

hypotheses; subject to unbiased peer

review; accepting of negative results as

positive outcomes; and without

conflicts of interest. Further guidance

was issued by OSTP on June 23, 2025.

3

As DOE updates its analytic

framework, these efforts will also be

consistent with the ‘‘Final Information

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review’’ (‘‘the

Peer Review Bulletin’’) that calls for

qualified specialists to peer review

influential scientific information

disseminated by the Federal

government. 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005).

As defined in the Peer Review Bulletin,

‘‘scientific information’’ means factual

inputs, data, models, analyses, technical

information, or scientific assessments

related to such disciplines as the

behavioral and social sciences, public

health and medical sciences, life and

earth sciences, engineering, or physical

sciences. Id. at 70 FR 2675. In response

to the Peer Review Bulletin, DOE

conducted a peer review of the analyses

used in a typical energy conservation

standards rulemaking: screening and

engineering analysis; price markups

analysis; life-cycle cost and payback

period analyses; consumer sub-group

analysis; shipments analysis and

national impact analysis; manufacturer

impact analysis; utility impact analysis;

environmental assessment; employment

impact analysis; and the regulatory

impact analysis. DOE presented the

results of the peer review in a report

that was issued in February of 2007.

4

II. Authority

A. Statutory Requirements

This analytic framework update is

consistent with DOE’s responsibilities

under EPCA in setting ECS. The

following section outlines key EPCA

requirements in setting ECS and

elaborates on economic concepts that

correspond to those requirements. This

RFI is intended to inform and improve

DOE’s applied methodologies in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

41580

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

meeting the requirements of EPCA at 42

U.S.C. 6295(o)–(q).

DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1)

for certain products, if no test procedure

has been established for the product, or

(2) if DOE determines by rule that the

standard is not technologically feasible

or economically justified. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(3)(A)–(B); 42 U.S.C.

6313(a)(6)(A)–(C); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) In

determining whether a proposed

standard is economically justified, DOE

must determine whether the benefits of

the standard exceed its burdens. (42

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i); 42 U.S.C.

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) DOE

must make this determination after

receiving comments on the proposed

standard, and by considering, to the

greatest extent practicable, to consider

the following seven statutory factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard

on the manufacturers and consumers;

(2) The savings in operating costs,

throughout the estimated average life of the

products (i.e., life-cycle costs), compared

with any increase in the price of, or in the

initial charges for, or maintenance expenses

of, the products which 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 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 DOE considers relevant.

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

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)–(VII); 42 U.S.C.

6316(a))

Furthermore, the new or amended

standard must result in a significant

conservation of energy (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)–

(C); and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) and comply

with any other applicable statutory

provisions.

B. Evaluation of Statutory Requirements

This analytic framework RFI seeks

information, public comment, and/or

data on methodological and conceptual

tools aimed at a more complete and

updated analysis of these statutory

factors. The scope of the seven

economic justification factors covers a

wide array of economic concepts:

1. The economic impact of the standard on

the manufacturers and consumers: This

factor, which broadly lays out economic

impacts to manufacturers and consumers,

should be taken into consideration in setting

conservation standards regardless of whether

those impacts may be readily quantifiable or

not. Readily quantifiable effects include

potential energy and water savings, assuming

that consumers’ distribution of consumption

of energy and water does not change

appreciably over time. Currently, DOE folds

some of these impacts into the agency’s life-

cycle cost and payback period analysis.

Manufacturers’ compliance costs are also

readily quantifiable using information

collected through government data

collections, public comment, DOE’s tear-

downs and other engineering efforts,

purchase of proprietary information, and

other sources. There are other economic

effects that are more difficult to capture on

both the consumer and manufacturer sides.

Estimating changes in consumers’

consumption of substitutes (e.g., used and

refurbished appliances) and complimentary

goods (e.g., dryers if purchasing washers;

detergent choices) as a result of a

conservation standard is more difficult. For

example, if a clothes washer energy and

water conservation standard were to

adversely impact cleaning or rinsing

performance, consumers that experience any

such negative impacts on product

performance could potentially alter their

usage patterns, for example by using more

energy-intensive settings more frequently

(e.g., Extra-Hot temperature setting); using

more water-intensive cycle options (e.g.,

Deep Fill option; extra rinse cycles); using

non-regulated cycles (e.g., Heavy Duty cycle);

or re-washing clothing that has not been

cleaned sufficiently. Such changes to

consumer usage patterns may counteract the

energy and water savings that DOE has

estimated would be achieved at the higher

efficiency level (see 89 FR 19026, 19117

(March 15, 2024)). Similarly, if the same

standard also affects how clothing is washed,

then consumers may buy more powerful and

expensive detergent (complimentary good) in

reaction. Alternatively, if a new clothes

washer standard materially increases

purchase and installation costs for that

appliance, consumers may choose not to

purchase a clothes dryer when those

purchases are very often bundled as

complimentary goods. This change could

result in losses to society from foregone

market exchanges and losses in consumer

satisfaction where preferences would

typically lean towards a bundled purchase.

In addition, new standards may cause

manufacturers to divert resources away from

improving features that consumers want.

While not exhaustive, the above examples

illustrate that quantitative estimates of

potential energy and water savings and

compliance costs alone may not adequately

capture the full range of important effects.

2. The savings in operating costs,

throughout the estimated average life of the

products (i.e., life-cycle costs), compared

with any increase in the price of, or in the

initial charges for, or operating and

maintaining expenses of, the products which

are likely to result from the imposition of the

standard: DOE is already explicitly taking

this factor into consideration in the agency’s

life-cycle cost analysis and payback period

analysis and recognizes there are elements of

consumer behavior and welfare, as well as

considerations of the useful life of the

appliance, that are not currently captured in

this analysis.

3. The total projected amount of energy, or

as applicable, water savings likely to result

directly from the standard: DOE already

explicitly takes this factor into consideration

in the agency’s life-cycle cost analysis and

national impact analysis and recognizes there

are elements of consumer behavior and

welfare, such as in earlier stated examples,

that may affect these estimates but are not

currently captured in this analysis.

4. Any lessening of the utility or the

performance of the products likely to result

from the standard: Consumers value different

attributes of products differently. Some may

value the energy and/or water efficiency

savings more than the cycle time in clothes

washers. Others may value cycle time more

than the energy and/or water efficiency

savings. Others may place value in how

effectively any residual detergent is rinsed

from the clothing, or how much moisture is

removed from the clothing during the final

spin portion of the wash cycle. If changes in

energy and/or water conservation standards

were to lead to a reduction in certain aspects

of cleaning or rinsing performance, then

certain consumers may be less satisfied with

their clothes washers. Although these types

of effects may be more difficult to assess

quantitatively than potential energy and/or

water savings and compliance costs, they

nonetheless should be addressed. On the

other hand, consumer purchases often reveal

preferences for such functions, and by

statute, DOE must consider these changes in

utility and performance relative to products

in existence at the time a regulation being

contemplated.

5. The impact of any lessening of

competition, as determined in writing by the

Attorney General, that is likely to result from

the standard: Lessening of competition is a

concern that DOE takes seriously. Increases

in market power or significant market

consolidation would likely further reduce

consumer choices and lead to material

increases in the prices of covered products.

DOE currently applies a market

concentration index (HHI) in evaluating the

lessening of market competition. While this

index is a helpful indicator, DOE is

considering other indicators of lessening

competition. Market competition can decline

when fewer manufacturers participate in the

market or fewer manufacturers choose to

produce some product categories. When

consumer purchases do not decrease by

much as prices rise (in economic terms:

demand is relatively inelastic) and

competition decreases, manufacturers are

able to set prices higher without sharply

reducing the number of units sold. For

example, consumers often replace large

appliances such as water heaters, heat

pumps, air conditioners, or refrigerators

when they break down, which may result in

less price flexibility for the consumer. The

result is greater benefits for manufacturers

(who sell fewer units at a higher price),

reduced benefits for consumers (who buy

fewer units at a higher price), and some loss

to society (units that could have been

produced and sold at lower prices are not

produced and benefit no one). To account for

the impacts of reduced competition, DOE is

considering an analysis that more formally

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

41581

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

5

The Herindahl-Hirschman Index.

6

These additional up-front costs include more

than just the cost of the technology necessary to

improve energy economy; because consumers have

a scarcity of resources, it also includes the

opportunity cost of any other desirable features that

consumers give up when they choose the more

energy-efficient appliances and other covered

products.

7

Office of Management and Budget. (2003).

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis: https://

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4.

incorporates consumer responsiveness to

changes in price (price-elasticity of demand)

and the likely price impacts in markets

where high consolidation already exists.

5

6. The need for national energy and water

conservation: enhanced energy efficiency,

where economically justified, improves the

Nation’s energy security and strengthens the

economy. Reduced electricity demand due to

energy conservation standards is also likely

to reduce the cost of maintaining the

reliability of the electricity system,

particularly during peak-load periods. DOE

conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate

how standards may affect the Nation’s

needed power generation capacity.

7. Other factors DOE finds relevant: In the

past, the Secretary has exercised discretion

under factor seven for considerations such as

impacts of standards on certain subgroups

such as small manufacturers or low-income

senior citizens. DOE’s comparative analysis

can be applied to such distributional

outcomes as well, and DOE continues to

explore other discretionary considerations.

One such consideration may be to explicitly

state that the Secretary has determined that

any proposed standard for which costs

(including consumer welfare losses and

losses to society from lost market exchanges)

exceed benefits (including energy and

operating cost savings) will presumptively be

considered as not economically justified.

More generally, the Secretary has sufficient

discretion to apply a ‘‘walk up approach’’

under EPCA.

Energy Conservation and the Energy

Paradox

The potential for appliance and other

covered product buyers to voluntarily

forego improvements in energy

efficiency that seemingly offer savings

exceeding their initial costs is one

example of what is often termed the

‘‘energy efficiency gap’’ or ‘‘energy

efficiency paradox.’’ Economic theory

predicts that, holding all else equal,

individuals will purchase more

expensive energy-efficient appliances

and other covered products if they

expect future savings on energy

expenditures to offset the higher upfront

purchase costs.

6

If buyers fully

internalize the expected energy savings

that result from higher efficiency in

their appliances and other covered

products purchase decisions,

manufacturers will presumably supply

any improvements that buyers demand,

and appliances and other covered

products prices will fully reflect future

energy cost savings that consumers

would realize from owning—and

potentially reselling—more energy-

efficient models, if secondary markets

exist. In this case, a regulation that

induces increased energy efficiency of

appliances and other covered products

will impose net private costs on

appliance and other covered product

owners and can only result in social

benefits through correcting other market

failures (e.g., imperfect information or

internalizing other negative spillover

effects). If instead, regulations are issued

based on the premise that consumers

systematically ‘‘undervalue’’ cost

savings generated by improvements in

energy efficiency when choosing among

competing models, then more stringent

energy efficiency standards may lead

manufacturers to adopt improvements

in energy efficiency that buyers would

not choose despite the cost savings they

offer.

Whether the value of the resulting

realized energy savings will improve

consumer welfare depends on if and

why consumers appear to undervalue

future energy expenditures. If the

apparent ‘‘undervaluation’’ is due to

factors that are missing from the

analysis—e.g., tradeoffs with product

functions and attributes such as

cleaning performance, increased cycle

times when in energy saver mode, or

changes in the starkness, warmth, or

hue of light bulbs—these hidden or

missing costs may be offsetting some or

all of the value of energy savings and

may not result in additional social

benefits. The appearance of such a gap,

between the level of energy efficiency

that would minimize consumers’ overall

expenses and what they actually

purchase, is typically based on

engineering calculations that compare

the initial cost of providing higher

energy efficiency to the discounted

present value of the resulting savings in

future energy costs, and such analyses

will not typically capture the above

variables. If instead undervaluation is

due to consumer or manufacturer

inattention to future energy costs

resulting from a market failure such as

an information asymmetry, then the

value of energy savings is a social

benefit of the regulation. How potential

buyers value improvements in the

energy efficiency of new appliances and

other covered products is, therefore, an

important issue when assessing the

benefits and costs of government

regulation. There is a large body of

empirical literature examining this

issue, which comes to varying

conclusions about the extent that

consumers value these future energy

expenditures. As noted in the Office of

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’)

Circular A–4 (2003),

7

‘‘individual

preferences of the affected population

should be a guiding principle in the

regulatory analysis.’’ This literature and

its implications for DOE’s analysis will

be explored further in DOE’s analytic

framework update effort. DOE solicits

comment on methodological approaches

and literature relevant to the Energy

Paradox.

III. Recommendations From the

NASEM Report and DOE’s Solicitation

for Comments

The NASEM peer review committee

organized its findings and

recommendations across five areas: (1)

framework for developing regulations;

(2) assessing current models:

engineering and technology cost and

technology performance; (3) economic

analysis of standards; (4) consideration

of alternatives to a national standards

program; and (5) addressing the needs of

a changing world. The committee

provided most advice on how to

characterize uncertainty in DOE’s

analysis and data collections that would

improve the quality of analysis.

The section discusses each of the

recommendations and how they relate

to DOE’s rulemaking process for energy

conservation standards. This section

also highlights specific NASEM

recommendations relevant to comments

from stakeholders in response to the

Process Rule RFI. DOE is organizing

NASEM recommendations by analytic

topics and notes that each

recommendation may touch on multiple

topics.

C. Problem Statement and Market

Failure

The NASEM report includes four

recommendations regarding DOE’s

justification for energy conservation

rules. These recommendations center

around making DOE’s EPCA analysis

consistent with the requirements under

OMB Circular A–4, given statutory

requirements. In particular the NASEM

recommendations discussed market

failures or other motivation for federal

intervention.

Specifically, the NASEM report

recommendations include:

•RECOMMENDATION 2–2: DOE

should pay greater attention to the

justification for the standards, as

required by executive orders and the

EPCA requirement that standards be

economically justified. DOE should

attempt to find significant failures of

private markets or irrational behavior by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

41582

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

8

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B). In addition to statutory

requirements, significant regulatory actions

(including guidance documents) must adhere to

E.O. 12866 and Circular A–4 (if found economically

significant). The NASEM also recommended that,

consistent with the requirements of EPCA, DOE

move engineering technical support documents to

appendices and reorient the agency’s cost-benefit

analysis to be more economically focused and

consistent with the requirements of E.O. 12866 and

Circular A–4 (see, e.g., NASEM recommendation 2–

1).

9

DOE presents aggregate benefits and costs using

social discount rates of 3% and 7% and

incorporates low-growth and high-growth scenarios

from the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).

consumers in the no-standards case and

should consider such a finding as being

necessary to conclude that standards are

economically justified.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–13: DOE

should place greater emphasis on

providing an argument for the

plausibility and magnitude of any

market failure related to the energy

efficiency gap in their analyses. For

some commercial goods in particular,

there should be a presumption that the

market actors behave rationally unless

DOE can provide evidence or argument

to the contrary.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–14: The

committee recommends that DOE give

greater attention to a broader set of

potential market failures on the supply

side, including not just how standards

might reduce the number of competing

firms, but also how they might impact

price discrimination, technological

diffusion, and collusion.

DOE solicits further comment on how

the agency should use cost-benefit

analysis when determining whether

Federal energy conservation standards

would be economically justified under

EPCA.

8

This request applies generally

and with respect to identification of

market failure or other behaviors that do

not allow efficient allocation of

resources, as well as the significance of

those market failures or other problems.

DOE solicits further comment on how

the Department can provide statements

and evidence on: (1) demonstration of

market failure relevant to the covered

products; (2) existence of the energy

paradox or energy savings gap in the

covered residential product markets;

and (3) existence of the energy paradox

or energy savings gap for commercial

and industrial covered products.

1. Uncertainty and Variability

The NASEM recommended that DOE

incorporate methods to better reflect

underlying uncertainties in the analysis

and variability in consumer use patterns

and present those more fully. The

uncertainties and variabilities identified

by NASEM are central to the seven

factors that DOE considerers for

economic justification under EPCA, in

particular economic effects on

consumers and manufacturers, savings

in operating costs, and the total

projected amount of energy and water

savings. As a result, while this

recommendation pertains to DOE’s

overall analytic structure and approach,

it also has downstream effects on the

Key Considerations for Economic

Justification Pursuant to EPCA

discussed in section III.D of this

document. Specifically, the report

includes the following recommendation:

•RECOMMENDATION 4–15: In order

to evaluate the economic costs and

benefits of a standard, DOE should

present the distribution of costs and

benefits estimated in its models when

(1) uncertain parameters are represented

by probability distributions and (2)

parameters that vary across geographic

and other relevant dimensions are

disaggregated. The uncertainty or

variability the parameters represent

should be compounded or propagated—

properly accounting for any

correlations—throughout the

calculation. This methodology is

necessary for the markup analysis and

manufacturer impact analysis

(Recommendation 4–2), the shipments

analysis (Recommendation 4–4), and all

components of the life-cycle cost

analysis (Recommendations 4–5 and 4–

7). Where multiple sources of

uncertainty must be combined for the

final benefits result, as with net benefits

depending on both the shipments

analysis and the appliance unit cost and

performance, the subcomponents

should be reported as well

(Recommendation 4–5).

DOE presents estimates for benefits

and costs of energy conservation

standards

9

and recognizes that there is

a significant amount of variability in

how consumers use their regulated

products. Capturing these distinctions

clarifies the allocation of costs and

benefits for DOE’s standards and reflects

variability and uncertainties associated

with model inputs. Understanding

variability and uncertainties is an

important part of properly interpreting

the results of DOE’s analysis.

On this topic, DOE solicits comment

on: (1) which critical inputs DOE should

prioritize in incorporating variability;

(2) how DOE should propagate

probabilistic assessment throughout the

agency analysis; (3) how DOE should

present results taking into account these

variabilities and uncertainties; and (4)

how DOE should guard against ill-

advised practices in accounting for

variability and uncertainty (e.g., use of

Monte Carlo simulation using a

distribution derived from small sample

sizes).

D. Technology Assessment

The NASEM report includes two

recommendations that touch on DOE’s

assessment of technology that should

inform the estimation of the baseline

technology which incorporates

technology evolution, adoption of

technology as a result of energy

conservations standards, and technology

taxonomy. This assessment is an

important input in DOE’s determination

as to whether an energy conservation

standard is technologically feasible, as

required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A).

Specifically, the NASEM

recommendations include:

•RECOMMENDATION 3–1: DOE

should consider technologies that are at

early, pre-competitive technological

readiness levels and have promise for

use in consumer products and

commercial/industrial equipment as

part of product population analyzed,

even if it seems plausible that they will

be screened out in later stages of the

analysis such as in the Screening

Analysis made during the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking. DOE should

continue to use the tools at its disposal,

such as reconsidering a previously

excluded technology, to avoid

prematurely screening-out innovative

technologies.

•RECOMMENDATION 3–2: DOE

should adopt a taxonomy for labeling

the readiness of technologies, such as

technology readiness level or ‘‘TRL’’ as

it is widely known.

Chapter 3 of the NASEM Report

focuses on DOE’s screening and

engineering analyses. During the early

phase of the rulemaking process, the

Department will typically develop a list

of design options for consideration.

Initially, the design options will

encompass all those technologies

considered to be technologically

feasible. DOE will then conduct a

screening analysis to determine which

technology options will be considered

as part of the engineering analysis.

The design options that are not

eliminated by this screening will then

form the basis for DOE’s engineering

analysis. The engineering analysis uses

these design options to develop cost-

efficiency relationships for the product

or equipment in question. These cost-

efficiency relationships are then used to

develop efficiency levels, which serve

as the basis for the proposed trial

standard levels.

The NASEM report found that ‘‘The

current screening analysis is

conservative and may force the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

41583

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

10

NASEM Report at p. 4.

11

NASEM Report at p. 2.

12

For example, see discussion in the December

2023 Consumer Furnaces Final Rule, sections IV.F.8

to IV.F.11 (covering various consumer preference

Continued

exclusion of some otherwise desirable

technology options. The most effective

appliance efficiency standards would

encourage the development and

eventual adoption of innovative

technology. Other agencies use

alternative methods in their own

technology evaluations for identifying a

technology’s readiness, such as the

technological readiness level (‘‘TRL’’)

taxonomy developed originally by the

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (‘‘NASA’’).’’

10

DOE requests comment on how the

agency can reflect technology evolution

that would have occurred even without

energy conservation standards and

whether the agency’s modeling of TSLs

and ELs reflect technology adoption

caused by the energy standards.

DOE requests further comments on

alternatives for how DOE might best

meet these specific NASEM

recommendations.

E. Key Considerations for Economic

Justification Pursuant to EPCA

EPCA directs DOE to select the

standard that represents the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency that is

technologically feasible and

economically justified. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) EPCA

also states that ‘‘[i]n determining

whether a standard is economically

justified, the Secretary shall, after

receiving views and comments

furnished with respect to the proposed

standard, determine whether the

benefits of the standard exceed its

burdens by, to the greatest extent

practicable, considering [the seven

enumerated factors].’’ (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(B)(i))

It is within this statutory context that

NASEM provided DOE with the

recommendations in the following

sections. NASEM specifically notes that

‘‘EPCA, as amended, authorizes DOE to

issue standards to ‘‘achieve the

maximum improvement in energy [or

water] efficiency . . . which the

Secretary determines is technologically

feasible and economically justified,’’

which involves evaluating ‘whether the

benefits of the standard exceed its

burdens.’ ’’

11

These recommendations

are central to DOE’s assessment of the

benefits and burdens of its standards,

and, as a result, whether a proposed

standard meets the statutory criteria for

being economically justified.

2. Consumer Effects

The NASEM report explicitly

recognizes that when consumers buy

covered products, they are buying

bundles of attributes including potential

energy savings. Energy savings is not the

only attribute, and may not even be a

determining factor in the selection of a

given appliance. To that end, the

NASEM recommends that DOE collect

data on consumer choice and use a

discrete choice model to analyze the

potential trade-offs consumers are

making when purchasing covered

products. These trade-offs will likely

affect DOE’s estimates of life-cycle costs

and shipments (i.e., aggregate demand),

as NASEM recommends modeling

differences in purchase behavior

between the baseline and different

TSLs. Consumer purchasing behavior

should include effects on shipment data

when it involves direct rebound.

Specifically, the NASEM report

recommends:

•RECOMMENDATION 5–1: The RIA

[Regulatory Impact Analysis] should be

grounded in an appreciation of

consumer needs beyond reduced energy

costs. The RIA should analyze not only

the impact of appliance and equipment

standards but also the additional impact

of measures within a framework that

includes the following:

ÆThe portfolio of voluntary elements

of demand-side management; and

ÆImpact of standards on the overall

power system external and internal to

the building and of the natural gas

supply and transmission and

distribution.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–3: DOE

should collect data on consumer choices

in appliance markets and estimate a

discrete choice model of consumer

behavior to quantify the trade-offs that

consumers face from changes in

appliance performance.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–5: DOE

should make changes to the Technical

Support Documents underpinning its

rulemakings to clearly communicate the

dependence of the life-cycle cost

(‘‘LCC’’) calculation on shipments

assumptions and thereby add clarity on

the interpretation of LCC savings. In

order to clarify the engineering scope of

a standard, apart from consumer

demand estimates, the technical support

documents should include (1) LCC

savings for one consumer choosing

between purchasing a baseline product

or purchasing a TSL and (2) LCC savings

for one consumer that could continue to

own a baseline product or replace it

with a TSL and (3) life-cycle cost

savings for products or equipment that

meet a given TSL as compared to the

baseline without adjusting for the

assumed current and future distribution

of sales (shipments).

•RECOMMENDATION 4–9: For

purposes of calculating changes in

energy use, DOE should consider direct

rebound wherever possible; if DOE

believes there to be minimal rebound,

they should document the reasons why.

However, consumer welfare should be

understood to benefit from rebound,

rather than be harmed by it,

notwithstanding the implied increase in

energy use. Approximations of the

welfare gain from rebound can be

incorporated wherever sufficient

information allows.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–4: The

committee recommends that DOE

propagate the uncertainty in the

shipments model’s input parameters

and present the full range of shipment

estimates.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–7: DOE

should improve the accuracy of its

estimates of all of the LCC calculation

components by (1) taking full advantage

of disaggregated data to account for

geographical and temporal variability

when available, (2) specifying

probability distributions instead of one-

point estimates and compounding or

propagating the uncertainty they

represent throughout the calculation, (3)

better recording the data collected by

RECS to avoid losing information

provided by respondents, (4) better

documenting the engineering analysis to

obtain disaggregated probabilistic

information necessary for the LCC, (5)

prioritizing the collection of information

for parameters likely to have a

significant impact such as the lifetime of

a product (i.e., durability), and (6)

validating the assumptions made in

previous analyses with data collection

through the engineering analyses, focus

groups with manufacturers, retailers,

consumers, and other means.

To evaluate the economic impacts of

a potential standard on consumers, in

particular the potential life-cycle cost

savings resulting from reduced energy

consumption, DOE uses a model based

on data reflecting the historic overall

market distributions of product

efficiency levels within the evaluated

consumer sample. As explained in

previous energy conservation standards

rulemakings, there is a complex set of

factors, with sometimes opposing

effects, affecting the markets for the

various types of products and

equipment for which DOE sets

efficiency standards, including whether

consumers may consider purchasing

alternative products.

12

Because of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

41584

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

options). 88 FR 87502, 87574–87596 (Dec. 18,

2023).

13

With regard to qualitative effects, Circular A–

4 states: ‘‘When your analysis is complete, you

should present a summary of the benefit and cost

estimates for each alternative, including the

qualitative and non-monetized factors affected by

the rule, so that readers can evaluate them.’’ While

the Circular is unambiguous that quantified

estimates are preferable to qualitative ones, these

qualitative effects should be summarized and

presented clearly for both the public and

policymakers. The Circular also instructs agencies

to differentiate between major and minor qualitative

effects, and to provide transparency: ‘‘When there

are important non-monetary values at stake, you

should also identify them in your analysis so

policymakers can compare them with the monetary

benefits and costs.’’

limitations on data, DOE’s analysis

assumes historic market distributions

persist across efficiency levels and

products. In other words, unless

presented with evidence to the contrary,

DOE assumes market share and covered

product classes remain at the levels

prior to the setting of a new ECS, and

that those shares and products remain

in place over the 30-year time horizon

over which DOE currently analyzes ECS

in both the baseline and potential

standards cases. In cases where

additional consumer preference data are

identified (e.g., empirically observed

demand elasticity estimates for the

covered products), they are utilized to

inform the life-cycle costs or to establish

bounding scenarios. Where such data do

not exist, DOE often assumes an

elasticity, typically ranging from 0.5, to

1, to 1.5 to reflect changes in demand

due to changes in projected price

resulting from a policy change. This

approach does not capture other

behavioral changes, for example,

switching between covered product

categories (e.g., consumers who need to

replace their refrigerators switching

from French door models to side-by-side

models or top freezer models, which

would be captured with cross-price

elasticities). Such changes may

substantially affect shipment projections

as well as projected energy savings.

Stakeholders have in various

rulemakings submitted comments

recommending changes to this

analytical approach. In the absence of

specific information or more detailed

and disaggregated data that would

support an alternative approach, DOE

seeks specific comments and any other

relevant information that would inform

evaluation of refinements to this portion

of the analysis for any or all product

classes. For relevant confidential

business information (‘‘CBI’’), DOE

seeks information on collection

practices that would be helpful and

notes that CBI practices are established

and utilized under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’) across the

Federal Government and at 10 CFR

1004.11.

By specifying an explicit consumer

model that allows trade-offs of covered

product attributes and using more

disaggregated data, DOE may be able to

account for the benefits and costs of

energy conservation standards more

completely and be able to forecast

market reactions more accurately. Recall

that the determinants of demand for

goods include price of the goods, good

attributes, and relevant substitute and

complimentary goods. By explicitly

modeling trade-offs between product

attributes and potential energy savings

attributable to different TSLs, DOE

would be able to forecast more

accurately how consumer demand may

change for each TSL where each TSL

would encompass different energy

savings and product attributes (e.g.,

decreased cleaning and or rinsing

performance for higher energy savings).

DOE’s current approach is intended to

analyze the benefits and costs of

changing energy conservation standards

by focusing solely on the attribute of

energy savings. DOE commits to

developing a consumer choice model

that allows trade-offs between different

attributes and energy savings that are

reflected in the distribution of consumer

choices by product efficiency level, as

such a model would allow examination

of effects that are specified in EPCA

statutory factors due to changes in

energy conservation standards and

incorporate changes in demand between

different products within a covered

product category and any reduction in

demand due to price changes. DOE

requests comment on best approaches to

model any and all effects specified in

the statutory factors.

DOE is committed to undertaking

steps to implement the NAS

recommendations on incorporating

consumer effects into the agency RIAs.

DOE acknowledges that building agency

capacity to conduct such analysis will

take time and resources. While DOE

builds this analytic capacity, DOE seeks

comment on how to undertake and

present consumer effects analysis in the

near term so that these important effects

can be accounted for in the interim (e.g.

qualitatively), while satisfying the

statutory obligation to balance the seven

factors.

DOE requests comment on how best

to present qualitative effects of its

regulations until new processes are in

place to provide a more robust

quantitative analysis, consistent with

the NASEM recommendations and the

general purpose of this RFI.

13

DOE also solicits comment on the

types of models the agency should build

in response to the NASEM

recommendations. A discrete choice

model allows for full trade-offs between

product attributes. This model would

need to interact with DOE’s model that

represents manufacturer choice to

produce products either by assuming

that producers minimize total costs to

comply with a new standard or

assuming that producers maximize total

profit when reacting to changes in the

minimum energy conservation standard

(e.g., there will be a segment of

aggregate demand for higher energy

conservation than the new minimum

energy conservation standard). How

should DOE identify the most important

product features that should be

incorporated into the consumer model?

As with any model, all features cannot

be incorporated explicitly, and

important features should be identified

to make the model workable. How

should DOE collect data to support a

consumer choice model (see more on in

section III.D of this document for

NASEM recommendations on data

collection)?

3. Manufacturer Effects

The NASEM report includes

recommendations on how DOE should

consider manufacturer effects,

including:

•RECOMMENDATION 3–5: DOE

should expand the Cost Analysis

segment of the Engineering Analysis to

include ranges of costs, patterns of

consumption, diversity factors, energy

peak demand, and variance regarding

environmental factors.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–2: To

account properly for uncertainty and

variability across manufacturers, DOE

should report ranges for the input

values that feed the GRIM [Government

Regulatory Impact Model] model and

run GRIM with the lower bound and

upper values in the observed ranges. To

make the MIA more transparent, DOE

should present its estimates of financial

parameters and cost of capital from

publicly available sources and then

report the adjusted values after the

responses to interviews have been

considered.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–6: DOE

should improve the representation of

variability and uncertainty on Installed

Costs by considering the variation in

costs components across states and by

leveraging the engineering analysis to

obtain a probabilistic characterization of

costs components.

The NASEM did not offer advice on

the overall structure of the cost model.

Instead, the NASEM advice focuses on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

41585

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

14

See, for example, the Direct Final Rule (DFR)

on Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators,

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, published in

the Federal Register on January 17, 2024 (89 FR

3026). Product prices are addressed in section

IV.F.2 of the DFR. 89 FR 3026, 3056–3057 (Jan. 17,

2024).

incorporating variability in costs,

consumption, and other inputs to the

GRIM and MIA analyses and on better

presentation of parameter variability

and uncertainty of results, such as

including ranges rather than point

estimates and better presentation of

financial parameters such as cost of

capital from publicly available sources

(e.g., Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis).

DOE also received comments in

response to the Process Rule RFI related

to NASEM recommendation 3–5: ‘‘DOE

should expand the Cost Analysis

segment of the Engineering Analysis to

include ranges of costs, patterns of

consumption, diversity factors, energy

peak demand, and variance regarding

environmental factors.’’ DOE solicits

comment on how the agency analysis

can incorporate this advice in

accounting for variability in inputs,

presenting ranges rather than point

estimates, and using probabilistic

characterization of both inputs and

outputs of the analysis. DOE also seeks

comment on data collections that DOE

may need to undertake to support these

advances in the manufacturing analysis.

Finally, DOE solicits comments on

whether a further wholesale re-

examination of modeling cost impacts

should be undertaken. In particular, are

there methodologies that can be applied

in place of or in addition to the GRIM

and MIA analyses?

4. Life-Cycle Cost and Energy Savings

The NASEM report includes

recommendations on how DOE should

consider life-cycle cost and energy

savings, including:

•RECOMMENDATION 3–3: DOE

should characterize the uncertainty on

the efficiency rating in its analyses.

Rather than providing a ‘‘point’’

estimate of efficiency, DOE should

provide a range that reflects the

variability in energy consumption under

different uses and consumer behavior.

This should reflect the need to account

for the uncertainty arising from the

range of conditions under which a

consumer may use a product and then

using those use-case ranges to establish

sensitivity studies so that efficiency can

be communicated as a range rather than

a single estimate.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–6: DOE

should improve the representation of

variability and uncertainty on Installed

Costs by considering the variation in

costs components across states and by

leveraging the engineering analysis to

obtain a probabilistic characterization of

costs components.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–7: DOE

should improve the accuracy of its

estimates of all of the LCC calculation

components by (1) taking full advantage

of disaggregated data to account for

geographical and temporal variability

when available, (2) specifying

probability distributions instead of one-

point estimates and compounding or

propagating the uncertainty they

represent throughout the calculation, (3)

better recording the data collected by

RECS to avoid losing information

provided by respondents, (4) better

documenting the engineering analysis to

obtain disaggregated probabilistic

information necessary for the LCC, (5)

prioritizing the collection of information

for parameters likely to have a

significant impact such as the lifetime of

a product (i.e., durability), and (6)

validating the assumptions made in

previous analyzes with data collection

through the engineering analyses, focus

groups with manufacturers, retailers,

consumers, and other means.

The NASEM’s recommendations on

life-cycle analysis center on increasing

accuracy and the precision of the life-

cycle analysis by incorporating

disaggregated data as much as possible,

as well as better reflecting the

underlying probability distribution

throughout the analysis. NASEM found

the LCC to overly rely on point

estimates and urged better

documentation of the analytic steps.

Collecting data on product attributes

like durability, as well as a range of

installation costs, are helpful to more

accurate modeling of consumer demand

for the products.

DOE requests comments on how to:

(1) incorporate disaggregated data that

increase the accuracy and precision of

the agency estimates, particularly in

capturing changes in consumer demand

would affect the overall conclusions of

the LCC; (2) present the analytic steps

of the life-cycle analysis more clearly.

DOE further requests insights into how

to more clearly present life-cycle

analysis steps and results as they

correspond to the range of identified

TSLs and ELs to better inform public

comment. DOE also requests insights

into product attributes that are

important to consumer demand that

may affect purchasing behavior for each

category of relevant goods (e.g.,

switching from gas water heater to

electric water heater and relevant energy

consumption rebound). Finally, DOE

requests general comments on the

Department’s LCC approach and

whether further revisions to this

analysis, such as the addition or

substitution of other methodologies or

models, might improve estimates.

5. Market Effects

The NASEM report includes

recommendations on how to analyze

potential price effects attributable to

energy conservation standards. The

report states that DOE should put more

emphasis on analyzing price effects

based on observed market-based mark-

ups, potential industry consolidation

due to competing firms leaving the

market and potential for collusion,

potential price discrimination between

product classes, type and rate of

technology diffusion, and other factors

that will affect market price for covered

products. The NASEM

recommendations note that DOE should

allow for incorporation of these effects

such that the price can increase, stay

relatively the same, or even decrease,

and not otherwise restrict the model.

Specifically, the report includes:

•RECOMMENDATION 4–1: DOE

should put greater weight on ex post

and market-based evidence of markups

to project a more realistic range of likely

effects of a standard on prices, including

the possibility that prices may fall. This

would improve future analyses.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–4: The

committee recommends that DOE

propagate the uncertainty in the

shipments model’s input parameters

and present the full range of shipment

estimates.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–14: The

committee recommends that DOE give

greater attention to a broader set of

potential market failures on the supply

side, including not just how standards

might reduce the number of competing

firms, but also how they might impact

price discrimination, technological

diffusion, and collusion.

As explained in previous

rulemakings,

14

DOE uses the historical

Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’) data from

the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (‘‘BLS’’)

as a proxy of the historical time series

of production cost for a product or

equipment that is addressed in the

rulemaking and assumes that increases

in cost will be fully passed through to

consumers. DOE relies on the

‘‘learning’’ or ‘‘experience’’ curves that

generally suggest a downward trend in

costs. 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. In the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

41586

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

15

For example, see: Weiss, M., M. Junginger, M.

K. Patel, and K. Blok (2010): ‘‘A Review of

Experience Curve Analyses for Energy Demand

Technologies.’’ Technological Forecasting and

Social Change, 77(3), pp. 411–428 (available at:

doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.10.009) (last

accessed October 22, 2025).

16

DOE’s current approach often assumes full pass

through. Depending on industry structure of firms

that produce covered products, this assumption

may lead to erroneous conclusions about price

change and demand change. DOE plans to peer

review a more robust model on price forecasting

going forward.

experience curve method, the real cost

of production declines with the

cumulative production or ‘‘experience’’

manufacturing a product.

Although there is considerable

empirical evidence supporting use of an

experience or learning curve (or a

generalized price trend) to model price

declines over time for various types of

products and equipment,

15

DOE has in

previous rulemakings received

comments from stakeholders

questioning the methodology and

underlying data. In response to these

comments, DOE notes that its utilization

of the PPI data stems in large part from

the limited data availability on

historical manufacturing costs broken

down by different components. Still,

DOE acknowledges that regressing the

dependent variable of price on PPI will

reduce or eliminate the substantive

robustness and meaning of price

forecasts. Further, PPI shifts

consumption baskets over time, which

is inconsistent with DOE’s assumption

that the shares of covered products do

not change over the 30-year analytic

time horizon. In addition, DOE

acknowledges the simplified learning

curve model employed does not control

for autocorrelation while at the same

time utilizing time series data. Finally,

DOE acknowledges that future price

changes can be more robustly modeled,

such as through an examination of

changes in marginal cost, which is an

approach other agencies have applied in

forecasting price.

16

DOE solicits comment on how the

agency can model consumer and

manufacturer behaviors that result in

market reactions to the energy

conservation standards. In response to a

new standard, manufacturers must

comply and may incur additional

manufacturing costs. These costs will be

passed onto consumers, fully or in part

depending on applicable elasticities,

and consumers will react by adjusting

their purchase in various ways,

including by delaying purchases or

seeking a similar good in secondary

markets if such markets exist. DOE

solicits comments on (1) empirical

estimates of consumer demand

elasticities, manufacturer supply

elasticities, (2) how to account for

secondary markets, (3) how to conduct

price forecasting (rather than

exclusively relying on the use of PPI or

other indices of inflation); (4) how to

account for industry consolidation; and

(5) how to account for product

differentiation and price discrimination,

if relevant. DOE also solicits comment

on data requirements and sources for

this type of modeling. Finally, DOE

solicits comment on whether and which

methodological tools and approaches

can be employed in addition to or as

replacement of existing approaches to

model manufacturer and consumer

responses to possible ECS.

6. Emissions

Under EPCA, the Secretary exercises

his discretion in determining which

additional factors should be considered

in making a determination regarding

economic justification. In DOE’s 2026

Process Rule proposal, the Secretary has

proposed that DOE will no longer

consider environmental emissions as a

factor in determining economic

justification. The NASEM recommended

that DOE monetize all meaningful

emission changes that are attributable to

energy conservation standards, and at

the time of the NASEM

recommendations, DOE was estimating

such changes as part of the ECS

analysis. As DOE is proposing to no

longer consider environmental

emissions as a factor in determining

economic justification, DOE is not

specifically seeking information related

to this NASEM recommendation.

F. Data Collection

The NASEM report provides advice

on future data collections that DOE

would need to undertake in order to run

more rigorous and disaggregated models

of consumers and manufacturers

behavior in relation to effects of energy

conservation standards. The NASEM

recommends collecting ex-post market

data on consumer behavior, producer

behavior, energy consumption, and

environmental impacts that allow

variability and probabilistic assessment

when appropriate. Also, NASEM

recommends that in-situ or real-life

energy consumption information may be

better than modeled or test data, as

consumption behavior may affect

overall energy usage, such as through a

rebound effect.

Specifically, the NASEM report

includes the following:

•RECOMMENDATION 2–3: DOE

should commit to collecting data

necessary to conduct more rigorous ex

post analysis of the effects of standards

on consumers, producers, energy

consumption, and environmental

impacts.

•RECOMMENDATION 3–4: DOE

should launch a study to investigate

improved methods for data acquisition

and analysis for use in setting and

revising standards. This study should

include an overview of where DOE

helps enable collection of these data

now and how they can improve that

process at minimum impact on

manufacturers.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–1: DOE

should put greater weight on ex post

and market-based evidence of markups

to project a more realistic range of likely

effects of a standard on prices, including

the possibility that prices may fall. This

would improve future analyses.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–3: DOE

should collect data on consumer choices

in appliance markets and estimate a

discrete choice model of consumer

behavior to quantify the trade-offs that

consumers face from changes in

appliance performance.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–7: DOE

should improve the accuracy of its

estimates of all of the LCC calculation

components by (1) taking full advantage

of disaggregated data to account for

geographical and temporal variability

when available, (2) specifying

probability distributions instead of one-

point estimates and compounding or

propagating the uncertainty they

represent throughout the calculation, (3)

better recording the data collected by

RECS [the Residential Energy

Consumption Survey] to avoid losing

information provided by respondents,

(4) better documenting the engineering

analysis to obtain disaggregated

probabilistic information necessary for

the LCC, (5) prioritizing the collection of

information for parameters likely to

have a significant impact such as the

lifetime of a product (i.e., durability),

and (6) validating the assumptions made

in previous analyses with data

collection through the engineering

analyses, focus groups with

manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and

other means.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–8: DOE

should seek to gather and make use of

in situ performance data wherever

possible to account for any performance

gaps. When estimates of in situ

performance data are unavailable, DOE

should include a qualitative assessment

of the potential for a performance gap.

Indicators of performance include

maintenance requirements and product

lifetime as well as energy and water

consumption.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–16: DOE

should obtain better data for improving

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

41587

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

17

https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/

index.php.

18

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/

ahs.html.

19

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/

scfindex.htm.

20

https://www.census.gov/topics/

population.html.

21

https://www.decisionanalyst.com/syndicated/

homecomfort/.

22

See e.g., AcuPOLL

®

Precision Research, Inc.

Survey of Consumer Ceiling Fan Usage and

Operations. 2014.

23

See e.g., https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/

default/files/lighting_report_2022-1220_final.pdf.

24

https://www.pecanstreet.org/.

25

See e.g., https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/

default/files/lbnl-6868e.pdf.

26

https://www.census.gov/construction/soc/

index.html.

27

https://netforum.eei.org/eweb/DynamicPage.

aspx?WebCode=SubPubSearch&pager=12

&Site=EEIEWEB&EEIEWEBTOKEN=.

28

https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/

.

29

https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/

index.php.

30

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/

landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00679.

31

The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and

Refrigeration Institute (‘‘AHRI’’); Air Movement and

Control Association (‘‘AMCA’’) International;

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

(‘‘AHAM’’); Consumer Technology Association

(‘‘CTA’’); Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association

(‘‘HPBA’’); Heating, Air-Conditioning, Refrigeration

Distributors International (‘‘HARDI’’); National

Association of Manufacturers (‘‘NAM’’); National

Automatic Merchandising Association (‘‘NAMA’’);

North American Association of Food Equipment

Manufacturers (‘‘NAFEM’’); National Electrical

Manufacturers Association (‘‘NEMA’’); Plumbing-

Heating-Cooling Contractors Association (‘‘PHCC’’);

Plumbing Manufacturers International (‘‘PMI’’); and

Power Tool Institute (‘‘PTI’’).

the economic analyses of appliance and

equipment performance standards.

Empirical data are needed on markups

(Recommendation 4–1), consumer

choices in appliance markets

(Recommendation 4–3), and in situ

performance (Recommendation 4–8).

Some of this information can come from

relatively simple changes to current

surveys and studies, including

engineering analyses of the Appliance

and Equipment Standards Program and

the Residential Energy Consumption

Survey (Recommendation 4–7).

•RECOMMENDATION 4–17: Ex post

analyses can validate assumptions made

in prior standards and evaluate the

implications of prior forecasts’

inaccuracies and mistakes. DOE should

use such ex post analyses routinely to

improve forward-looking standards

iteratively.

Currently, DOE relies on a variety of

sources including, but not limited to:

Household surveys:

•US EIA, Residential Energy

Consumption Survey (‘‘RECS’’)

17

•US Census, American Housing Survey

(‘‘AHS’’)

18

•Federal Reserve, Survey of Consumer

Finances (‘‘SCF’’)

19

•US Census, Population data

20

•Decision Analyst, American Home

Comfort Study

21

Consumer Surveys:

•Various market research companies

22

•Various public Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory (‘‘LBNL’’) reports

summarizing results of consumer

surveys conducted by LBNL

23

Field Metering:

•Pecan Street

24

•Various public LBNL reports

summarizing results of field metering

studies conducted by LBNL

25

Review of Permits:

•US Census, Survey of Construction

(‘‘SOC’’)

26

Company Surveys:

•EEI Typical electricity bill data

27

•US EIA, Commercial Building Energy

Consumption Survey (‘‘CBECS’’)

28

Household Energy Supplier Monthly

Bills

•US EIA, RECS billing data

29

Weather Data

•NOAA Weather data

30

Manufacturer Interviews Conducted

Under Non-disclosure Agreements

(‘‘NDA’’)

DOE requests comment on these

common data sources used in the

rulemaking process, including whether

they already address any of the NASEM

recommendations, and whether any

other available data sources would

inform DOE’s rulemaking analysis with

more detailed or additional data

addressing similar topics. DOE solicits

further comments on any other specific

data elements that DOE should collect

that inform promulgation of energy

conservation standards.

DOE solicits further comments on

appropriate methods that can be used to

ensure quality control of the scientific

information noted above, including

when additional peer review would be

necessary.

G. Effects on Power Systems

The NASEM provided

recommendations on how energy

conservation standard analysis should

take into account effect on power

systems and emissions thereof. As noted

previously, in the 2026 Process Rule

proposal, the Secretary has exercised his

discretion under EPCA to discontinue

analyzing emissions impacts as part of

his economic justification

determination. Regarding the upstream

impact to power generation, the NASEM

report recommended the following:

•RECOMMENDATION 3–6: DOE

should consider Demand Response

readiness as a factor in cost-efficiency

calculations. This necessitates the

inclusion of power system benefits not

currently considered.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–10: DOE

should credit as economically valuable

those features and innovations that save

consumers money and enable

appliances to contribute to grid

efficiency and reliability.

•RECOMMENDATION 4–11: To

estimate changes in emissions during

the compliance year, DOE should

estimate for each state, the changes in

the hourly load curve that would result

from the adoption of an energy

efficiency standard during a full year.

Using these estimates, the National

Energy Modeling System can

incorporate different assumptions about

decarbonization of the U.S. electricity

system such as the natural gas prices

and the penetration of renewable energy

and energy storage and estimate a range

of emissions changes for each relevant

region and time.

DOE is committed to reflecting

ongoing changes in the electricity

generation system and implications to

energy conservation standard analysis,

and welcomes comment on how best to

do so.

IV. Summary of Analysis-Related

Topics Raised in Comments on the

Process Rule RFI

As mentioned previously, in response

to the 2025 Process Rule RFI, DOE

received several comments on topics

related to analytic methodologies used

by DOE to consider and set standards.

These topics also relate to some of the

NASEM recommendations, as discussed

in section II of this document. The list

of commenters on the 2025 Process Rule

RFI is summarized in Table 1. In the

2026 Process Rule NOPR also recently

published in the Federal Register, DOE

summarizes comments on analytic

methodologies it has received. The

NOPR also indicated that DOE would

consider analytic comments as part of a

separate process. Relevant comments

from the 2025 Process Rule RFI are

acknowledged below, though discussed

in more detail in the Process Rule

NOPR.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

41588

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

32

(BHI, No. 16 at pp. 5–6; BWC, No. 34 at p. 5;

Joint Commenters, No. 24 at pp. 3–4; AHRI, No. 28

at pp. 2, 7–8,11–12; Joint Gas Associations, No. 25

at pp. 23–24, 37–38; APPA, No. 20 at p. 1; Joint

Advocates, No. 31 at pp. 2–3; EEI, No. 35 at p. 2;

State Agencies, No. 33 at p. 2; Heidi King

Consulting, No. 30 at pp. 1–3; Lennox, No. 26 at pp.

6–7).

33

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at p. 22;

Strauch, No. 18 at p. 1; NAFEM, No. 13 at p. 8).

34

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at p. 22;

Lennox, No. 26 at p. 7).

35

(ACCA, No. 38 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 28 at pp. 4,

7; EEI, No. 35 at p. 2; Joint Gas Associations, No.

25 at pp. 22–24; Joint Advocates, No. 31 at p. 3;

Lennox, No. 26 at p. 7; NAHB, No. 19 at p. 4;

NMHC and NAA, No. 29 at pp. 2–5; ONE Gas, No.

37 at pp. 2–3; ONE Gas, No. 37 at pp. 2–3; Rinnai,

No. 11 at pp. 3, 6–8).

36

(APPA, No. 20 at p. 5; Ceres, No. 22 at p. 5;

NEEA, No. 36 at p. 3; EEI, No. 35 at p. 5).

37

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at pp. 18–19;

ONE Gas, No. 37 at pp. 4–5; Rinnai, No. 11 at pp.

3, 7–8).

38

(AHRI, No. 28 at p. 10; BWC, No. 34 at p. 5;

Ceres, No. 22 at p. 4; State Agencies, No. 33 at p.

2; Strauch, No. 18 at p. 2; NAHB, No. 19 at p. 5;

NAFEM, No. 13 at p. 7; Zero Zone, No. 15 at p. 5).

39

(ONE Gas, No. 37 at p. 4).

40

(ACCA, No. 38 at p. 2; NAFEM, No. 13 at pp.

2–3; Rinnai, No. 11 at pp. 3, 6).

41

(Heidi King Consulting, No. 30 at p. 5; Lennox,

No. 26 at p. 5; NEMA, No. 23 at p. 6–7; NRECA,

No. 17 at p. 2).

42

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at pp. 21, 22;

Heidi King Consulting, No. 30 at p. 3; Rinnai, No.

11 at p. 9).

43

(AHRI, No. 28 at p. 4; Lennox, No. 26 at p. 6;

PHTA, No. 27 at pp. 1–2).

44

(APPA, No. 20 at pp. 2–3; EEI, No. 35 at pp.

2–3).

45

(Joint Gas Associations, No. 25 at pp. 11–15, 17;

Rinnai, No. 11 at pp. 9, 12).

T

ABLE

1—C

OMMENTERS

W

ITH

W

RITTEN

S

UBMISSIONS

R

ELATED TO

A

NALYTICAL

M

ETHODOLOGIES IN

R

ESPONSE TO THE

A

PRIL

2025 P

ROCESS

R

ULE

RFI

Commenter(s) Abbreviation

Comment No.

in the docket * Commenter type

AHRI, AMCA, AHAM, CTA, HPBA, HARDI, NAM, NAMA,

NAFEM, NEMA, PHCC, PMI, PTI

31

.Joint Commenters ........... 24 Trade Associations.

Air Conditioning Contractors of America ..................................... ACCA ............................... 38 Trade Association.

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ................. AHRI ................................ 28 Trade Association.

ASHRAE ...................................................................................... ASHRAE .......................... 12 Trade Association.

Manufactured Housing Institute ................................................... MHI .................................. 21 Trade Association.

National Association of Home Builders ....................................... NAHB ............................... 19 Trade Association.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association ............................ NEMA .............................. 23 Trade Association.

National Multifamily Housing Council and National Apartment

Association. NMHC and NAA .............. 29 Trade Association.

North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers NAFEM ............................ 13 Trade Association.

Pool & Hot Tub Alliance .............................................................. PHTA ............................... 27 Trade Association.

Bradford White Corporation ......................................................... BWC ................................ 34 Manufacturer.

Burnham Holdings, LLC .............................................................. BHI ................................... 16 Manufacturer.

Lennox International Inc .............................................................. Lennox ............................. 26 Manufacturer.

Rinnai America Corporation ........................................................ Rinnai .............................. 11 Manufacturer.

WM Technologies LLC ................................................................ WM Technologies ............ 14 Manufacturer.

Zero Zone, Inc ............................................................................. Zero Zone ........................ 15 Manufacturer.

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for

an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of Amer-

ica, National Consumer Law Center.

Joint Advocates ............... 31 Environmental and Energy-Effi-

ciency Advocates.

Ceres, Inc .................................................................................... Ceres ............................... 22 Environmental and Energy-Effi-

ciency Advocates.

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance .......................................... NEEA ............................... 36 Environmental and Energy-Effi-

ciency Advocates.

ONE Gas, Inc .............................................................................. ONE Gas ......................... 37 Utility.

American Gas Association, American Public Gas Association,

National Propane Gas Association. Joint Gas Associations .... 25 Utility Associations.

American Public Power Association ............................................ APPA ............................... 20 Utility Association.

Edison Electric Institute ............................................................... EEI ................................... 35 Utility Association.

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association ......................... NRECA ............................ 17 Utility Association.

Hawaii State Energy Office; Washington State Department of

Commerce. State Agencies ................ 33 State Agencies.

Heidi King Consulting .................................................................. Heidi King Consulting ...... 30 Consultant.

Mark Strauch ............................................................................... Strauch ............................ 18 Individual.

* EERE–2025–BT–STD–0001.

DOE received several comments

pertaining to the analysis conducted in

support of the development of energy

conservation standards, including

comments on the methodology and

development of input values related to

the general approach,

32

as well as

comments pertaining to specific

analyses, including: (1) the engineering

analysis;

33

(2) the markups analysis;

34

(3) the energy use and life-cycle cost

analysis;

35

(4) the environmental

analysis

36

and full-fuel-cycle energy

metrics;

37

(5) the monetization of

emissions analysis;

38

(6) the utility

impact analysis;

39

and (7) the

manufacturer impact analysis.

40

Some

comments on the general approach

overlap with recommendations in

chapters 2 through 4 of the NASEM

report. Some comments on the

engineering analysis overlap with

recommendations in chapter 3 of the

NASEM report. Some comments on the

markups analysis, energy use and life-

cycle cost analysis, the environmental

analysis, the monetization of emissions

analysis, the utility impact analysis, and

the manufacturer impact analysis

overlap with recommendations in

chapter 4 of the NASEM report.

DOE further received additional

comments specific to the following

topics: (1) the approach to evaluate

hard-to-quantify effects

41

and evaluate

market failures;

42

(2) the cumulative

regulatory burden analysis;

43

(3)

considerations of any potential supply

chain constraints;

44

(4) fuel neutrality

and analysis of fuel switching;

45

and (5)

the need for retrospective review and

validation of existing standards prior to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

41589

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

46

(ACCA, No. 38 at p. 2; Joint Gas Associations,

No. 25 at pp. 26–28; NAHB, No. 19 at p. 4; Rinnai,

No. 11 at p. 10).

47

This effect is not consumers repairing older

covered products in lieu of replacing them with

products that meet the minimum energy

conservation standards.

initiating new rulemakings.

46

Some of

these comments overlap with

recommendations in chapters 2 through

4 of the NASEM report. For example,

market failures and retrospective

analyses are discussed in more than one

chapter of the NASEM report.

V. Additional Analytic Topics

In addition to the NASEM report and

comments received in the April 2025

Process Rule RFI, DOE has also received

comments during previous energy

conservation standards rulemakings

regarding specific aspects of its analysis.

In this section, DOE has identified

specific analytic issues on which DOE

has previously received such comments

and on which the Department is

interested in seeking additional

information that may inform future

revisions or refinements to those

analytical methods. These specific

topics are addressed in the following

paragraphs.

A. Repair and Installation Cost

Assumptions

As part of its analysis of the potential

economic effects of an efficiency

standard, DOE considers installation,

repair, and maintenance costs where

appropriate. Repair costs are associated

with repairing or replacing product

components that have failed in an

appliance; maintenance costs are

associated with maintaining the

operation of the product.

47

Typically,

small incremental increases in product

efficiency entail no, or only minor,

changes in repair and maintenance costs

compared to baseline efficiency

products. In the absence of specific

evidence indicating otherwise, DOE

typically conducts its analysis under the

assumption that repair and maintenance

costs will not vary by efficiency level

and, thus, have no direct impact on the

economic basis for a standard. DOE also

endeavors to estimate installation costs

and has received comment in the past

that space and retrofit considerations

are not always captured or fully

captured. However, for some products,

sufficient data and information exist to

support specific installation, repair,

and/or maintenance costs for higher-

efficiency products. In those cases, the

differential costs are incorporated into

the analysis. To ensure this approach

remains valid, DOE is interested in

receiving any comments or information

that may suggest consideration of an

alternative approach, taking into

consideration that this may vary

significantly by the type of product or

equipment being evaluated.

B. Modeling Retirement and

Replacement

As part of its analysis of the impact

on consumer life-cycle costs and

product shipments following the

implementation of a new or amended

efficiency standard, DOE models

product lifetime using a survival

function, typically based on a Weibull

distribution. The survival function is

calibrated using available data on

average product or equipment lifetime

from survey data, manufacturer product

literature, confidential manufacturer

interviews, and other studies in the

literature. DOE also may conduct

sensitivity analyses with varying

survival functions when available

information indicates substantial

uncertainty in typical product or

equipment lifetimes.

DOE often also analyzes the potential

impact of consumers choosing to repair

their product or equipment at the end of

life instead of purchasing a new product

or equipment as a result of a higher

minimum energy standard level. This

extended repair option may be chosen

by a fraction of consumers, which will

delay the purchase of a new product or

equipment, thereby reducing short-term

shipments and reducing potential

energy savings from a new or amended

efficiency standard. Over time, this

effect disappears as consumers

eventually replace their product or

equipment.

DOE has received comments on this

methodology in previous rulemakings

and is interested in receiving any

additional data or information that may

inform revisions or refinements to this

approach, taking into consideration that

this may vary significantly by the type

of product or equipment being

evaluated. DOE is also interested in

comments regarding the assumptions

regarding recurring shipments for

covered products as they are repeated

across the 30-year time horizon.

C. Analytic Timeline

DOE has historically used 30 years as

the agency’s primary analytic time

horizon. This choice reflects the

agency’s goal of comparing benefits and

costs of different agency actions on the

same basis across time. As a sensitivity,

DOE has also used 9-year analysis

timeframe that reflects the agency

rulemaking cycle (i.e., the 6-year review

cycle plus the 3-year lead time

provision under EPCA). One major

deficiency of these two timelines is the

lack of covered product-specific

information, such as useful life or

design cycle. Conducting analysis over

specific covered product lifetime

horizons may increase accuracy and the

transparency of the analysis. DOE seeks

comment the agency’s choice of analytic

timeline for analysis, including whether

as a routine application, the 30-year

time horizon should be replaced or

paired with product-life-specific time

horizons.

D. Baseline

Typically, DOE’s energy efficiency

standards are set such that significant

portion of the market is already meeting

or exceeding the standards (e.g., 30%),

such that the real effect of DOE’s

standards is to increase the speed of

adoption of energy-efficient appliances.

As a result, the rate of technological

advance assumed in the baseline is

material to the quantification of benefits

and costs. For example, a baseline that

assumes market evolution toward

greater energy or water efficiency even

in the absence of a new standard would

result in benefits attributed to the

standard tending to decline over time as

the hypothetical market in the baseline

‘‘catches up’’ with the efficiency levels

required by the standard. DOE seeks

comment on whether its current

approach adequately models the

adoption of more efficient technologies

over time in the absence of a Federal

standard.

Request for Comments

DOE is requesting comments on

actions DOE should take in response to

any of the recommendations in NASEM

Report, as well as any of the additional

analysis topics described in this RFI.

DOE also specifically requests

comments on the following topics as

key factors to improving the

effectiveness and confidence in analytic

methodology for appliance and

equipment performance standards.

•Specific refinements to analytic

inputs that provide meaningful

improvements to DOE analysis while

avoiding data requests that present

undue burden on manufacturers and

other industry stakeholders, and also

protect consumer privacy;

•Making data used for analysis

transparent and accessible. When

balancing the protection of proprietary

information held by manufacturers and

other industry stakeholders, best

practices are used to ensure replicability

of analysis;

•How to prioritize various updates

and additions to DOE’s analysis efforts,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

41590

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

48

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/

2025/03/OSTP-Guidance-for-GSS-June-2025.pdf.

including increased use of retrospective

analysis.

In alignment with Executive Order

14154 and given requirements under

EPCA, DOE requests that commenters

give particular consideration to how

DOE can most effectively implement the

subsections (f) through (h) of Section 2

of E.O. 14154, which relate most

directly to DOE’s analysis

methodologies for appliance and

equipment performance standards:

•To safeguard the American people’s

freedom to choose from a variety of

goods and appliances, including but not

limited to lightbulbs, dishwashers,

washing machines, gas stoves, water

heaters, toilets, and shower heads, and

to promote market competition and

innovation within the manufacturing

and appliance industries;

•To ensure that the global effects of

a rule, regulation, or action shall,

whenever evaluated, be reported

separately from its domestic costs and

benefits, in order to promote sound

regulatory decision making and

prioritize the interests of the American

people; [and]

•To guarantee that all executive

departments and agencies (agencies)

provide opportunity for public comment

and rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific

analysis.

In alignment with Executive Order

14303, DOE requests that commenters

give particular consideration to

providing data, analysis, and

suggestions for updating analytic

methodologies that are consistent with

the definition of ‘‘Gold Standard

Science’’ included in Section 3 of the

Order: reproducible; transparent;

communicative of error and uncertainty;

collaborative and interdisciplinary;

skeptical of findings and assumptions;

structured for falsifiability of

hypotheses; subject to unbiased peer

review; accepting of negative results as

positive outcomes; and without

conflicts of interest. More detail about

each of these characteristics is available

in the guidance issued by OSTP on June

23, 2025.

48

DOE will review comments from this

RFI, as well as the Process Rule RFI,

alongside the NASEM

recommendations. With this

information, DOE will begin developing

analytical methods and processes that

are transparent, accessible, objective,

credible, and prevent suboptimal

outcomes for industry and consumers.

E. Methodological Support of 42 U.S.C.

6295(o) Analysis

DOE is interested in comments about

methodological approaches and

associated data that have not been

specifically mentioned that would be

beneficial for consideration in

addressing the NASEM

recommendations and in support of

analysis to meeting the requirements of

EPCA set forth at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

VI. Submission of Comments

DOE invites all interested parties to

submit in writing by the date specified

in the

DATES

section of this document,

comments and information on matters

addressed in this document. After the

close of the comment period, DOE will

review the public comments received

and consider next steps.

Submitting comments via

www.regulations.gov. The

www.regulations.gov web page requires

you to provide your name and contact

information. Your contact information

will be viewable to DOE Building

Technologies Office staff only. Your

contact information will not be publicly

viewable except for your first and last

names, organization name (if any), and

submitter representative name (if any).

If your comment is not processed

properly because of technical

difficulties, DOE will use this

information to contact you. If DOE

cannot read your comment due to

technical difficulties and cannot contact

you for clarification, DOE may not be

able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information

will be publicly viewable if you include

it in the comment or in any documents

attached to your comment. Any

information that you do not want to be

publicly viewable should not be

included in your comment, nor in any

document attached to your comment. If

this instruction is followed, persons

viewing comments will see only first

and last names, organization names,

correspondence containing comments,

and any documents submitted with the

comments.

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov

information for which disclosure is

restricted by statute, such as trade

secrets and commercial or financial

information (hereinafter referred to as

Confidential Business Information

(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed

as CBI. Comments received through the

website will waive any CBI claims for

the information submitted. For

information on submitting CBI, see the

Confidential Business Information

section.

DOE processes submissions made

through www.regulations.gov before

posting. Normally, comments will be

posted within a few days of being

submitted. However, if large volumes of

comments are being processed

simultaneously, your comment may not

be viewable for up to several weeks.

Please keep the comment tracking

number that www.regulations.gov

provides after you have successfully

uploaded your comment.

Submitting comments via email, hand

delivery/courier, or postal mail.

Comments and documents submitted

via email, hand delivery/courier, or

postal mail also will be posted to

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want

your personal contact information to be

publicly viewable, do not include it in

your comments or any accompanying

documents. Instead, provide your

contact information in a cover letter.

Include your first and last names, email

address, telephone number, and

optional mailing address. The cover

letter will not be publicly viewable as

long as it does not include any

comments.

Include contact information each time

you submit comments, data, documents,

and other information to DOE. If you

submit via postal mail or hand delivery/

courier, please provide all items on a

CD, if feasible, in which case it is not

necessary to submit printed copies. No

telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be

accepted.

Comments, data, and other

information submitted to DOE

electronically should be provided in

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or

Excel, or text (ASCII) file format.

Provide documents that are not secured,

written in English and free of any

defects or viruses. Documents should

not contain special characters or any

form of encryption and, if possible, they

should carry the electronic signature of

the author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit

campaign form letters by the originating

organization in batches of between 50 to

500 form letters per PDF or as one form

letter with a list of supporters’ names

compiled into one or more PDFs. This

reduces comment processing and

posting time.

Confidential Business Information.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person

submitting information that he or she

believes to be confidential and exempt

by law from public disclosure should

submit via email two well-marked

copies: one copy of the document

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the

information believed to be confidential,

and one copy of the document marked

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

41591

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2026 / Proposed Rules

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE

will make its own determination about

the confidential status of the

information and treat it according to its

determination.

It is DOE’s policy that all comments

may be included in the public docket,

without change and as received,

including any personal information

provided in the comments (except

information deemed to be exempt from

public disclosure).

DOE considers public participation to

be a very important part of the process

for developing energy conservation

standards. DOE actively encourages the

participation and interaction of the

public during the comment period in

this process. Interactions with and

between members of the public provide

a balanced discussion of the issues and

assist DOE.

VII. Approval of the Office of the

Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved

publication of this request for

information and request for comment.

Signing Authority

This document of the Department of

Energy was signed on June 30, 2026, by

Audrey Robertson, Assistant Secretary

(EERE) for Critical Minerals and Energy

Innovation, U.S. Department of Energy,

pursuant to delegated authority from the

Secretary of Energy. That document

with the original signature and date is

maintained by DOE. For administrative

purposes only, and in compliance with

requirements of the Office of the Federal

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal

Register Liaison Officer has been

authorized to sign and submit the

document in electronic format for

publication, as an official document of

the Department of Energy. This

administrative process in no way alters

the legal effect of this document upon

publication in the Federal Register.

Signed in Washington, DC, on July 2, 2026.

Treena V. Garrett,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.

Department of Energy.

[FR Doc. 2026–13673 Filed 7–6–26; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Parts 141, 260, 357, and 369

[Docket No. RM26–12–000]

Revisions to Financial Forms

Reporting and Filing Requirements;

Correction

AGENCY

: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

ACTION

: Notice of proposed rulemaking;

correction.

SUMMARY

: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission published a

document in the Federal Register of

June 24, 2026, concerning a notice of

proposed rulemaking seeking comment

on the Commission’s proposal to amend

certain annual and quarterly financial

forms, and its current regulations

governing certain FERC financial forms.

The document contained an error.

DATES

: This correction is effective July

7, 2026, and applicable as of June 24,

2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

:

Laura Farkas (Legal Information), Office

of the General Counsel, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street

NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–

6060. Laura.Farkas@ferc.gov.

Jessica Hunt (Technical Information),

Office of Enforcement and Regulatory

Accounting, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street NE,

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6536,

Jessica.Hunt@ferc.gov.

Shanee Sibblies (Technical

Information), Office of Enforcement and

Regulatory Accounting, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street

NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–

8858, Shanee.Sibblies@ferc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

:

Correction

In FR Doc. 2026–12712 (195 FERC

¶ 61,206) beginning on page 37881 in

the issue of June 24, 2026, make the

following corrections:

1. On page 37881, in the third

column, in the

DATES

section, correct

‘‘Reply Comments are due July 24,

2026.’’ to read ‘‘Reply Comments are

due September 22, 2026.’’

2. On page 37888, in the second

column, in paragraph 61 of section VI,

correct ‘‘Reply Comments are due July

24, 2026.’’ to read ‘‘Reply Comments are

due September 22, 2026.’’

Issued: July 2, 2026.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2026–13726 Filed 7–6–26; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2025–1212; FRL–9632–03–

OAR]

RIN 2060–AV67

Minor New Source Review Program Air

Permitting Public Participation

Requirements for State Implementation

Plans

AGENCY

: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION

: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

: The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to

revise the public participation

regulatory requirements for sources

subject to Clean Air Act (CAA) New

Source Review (NSR) programs

approved into State Implementation

Plans (SIPs). Specifically, the EPA is

proposing to recognize in regulation that

State and local air quality regulatory

authorities (‘‘air agencies’’) determine,

pursuant to the CAA, whether, when,

and to what extent public participation

in minor NSR programs is necessary to

assure the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) are achieved. If

finalized, the changes effected by this

rulemaking would provide State and

local air agencies with greater discretion

to identify the requisite level of public

participation that is appropriate in their

minor NSR programs, which regulate

individual authorizations to construct

minor stationary sources and minor

modifications to existing stationary

sources.

DATES

: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before August 21, 2026.

Public hearing: If anyone contacts us

requesting a public hearing on or before

July 12, 2026, the EPA will hold a

virtual public hearing on July 22, 2026.

See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

for

information on requesting and

registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES

: You may send comments,

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2025–1212, by any of the

following methods:

•Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:

https://www.regulations.gov (our

preferred method). Follow the online

instructions for submitting comments.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:23 Jul 06, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS