76510 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2019–BT–STD–0043] 

RIN 1904–AE61 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Dehumidifiers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and announcement of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including dehumidifiers. EPCA also 

requires the U.S. Department of Energy 

(‘‘DOE’’) to periodically determine 

whether more stringent standards would 

be technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. In this 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NOPR’’), DOE proposes amended 

energy conservation standards for 

dehumidifiers, and also announces a 

public meeting to receive comment on 

these proposed standards and associated 

analyses and results. 

DATES: 

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this NOPR no later than 

January 5, 2024. 

Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

meeting via webinar on Thursday, 

December 14, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 

4:00 p.m. See section VII of this 

document, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments regarding the likely 

competitive impact of the proposed 

standard should be sent to the U.S. 

Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) contact 

listed in the ADDRESSES section on or 

before December 6, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EERE–2019–BT–STD–0043. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. Alternatively, interested 

persons may submit comments, 

identified by docket number EERE– 

2019–BT–STD–0043, by any of the 

following methods: 

Email: Dehumidifiers2019STD0043@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2019–BT–STD–0043 in the 

subject line of the message. 

Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

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

please submit all items on a compact 

disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 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 

IV of this document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2019-BT-STD-0043. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section VII 

of this document for information on 

how to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

EPCA requires the Attorney General 

to provide DOE a written determination 

of whether the proposed standard is 

likely to lessen competition. The U.S. 

Department of Justice Antitrust Division 

invites input from market participants 

and other interested persons with views 

on the likely competitive impact of the 

proposed standard. Interested persons 

may contact the Division at 

energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or 

before the date specified in the DATES

section. Please indicate in the subject 

line of your email the title and docket 

number of this proposed rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–2J, 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) 586–9496. Email: 

Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by 

email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Dehumidifiers 

III. General Discussion 

A. Scope of Coverage 

B. Test Procedure 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to 

Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Product Classes 

2. Technology Options 

a. Improved Compressor Efficiency 

b. Washable Air Filters 

c. Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers 

d. Alternative Refrigerants 

e. Low-Standby-Loss Electronic Controls 

f. Multi-Circuited Evaporator and 

Secondary Condenser Coils 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

2. Remaining Technologies 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Analysis 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76511 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

a. Baseline Efficiency 

b. Higher Efficiency Levels 

2. Cost Analysis 

3. Cost-Efficiency Results 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Product Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

6. Product Lifetime 

7. Discount Rates 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

G. Shipments Analysis 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

b. Shipments Projections 

c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs 

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

a. Increases in Chassis Size 

b. Refrigerant Regulation 

4. Discussion of MIA Comments 

K. Emissions Analysis 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in 

DOE’s Analysis 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

a. Social Cost of Carbon 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

2. Monetization of Other Emissions 

Impacts 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

8. Summary of Economic Impacts 

C. Conclusion 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Dehumidifier Standards 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Proposed Standards 

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling 

Plan 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 

3. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements Including Differences in 

Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of 

Small Entities 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Information Quality 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate 

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA 2

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309) These products include 

dehumidifiers, the subject of this 

proposed rulemaking. 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or 

amended standard must result in a 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also 

provides that not later than 6 years after 

issuance of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) 

In accordance with these and other 

statutory provisions discussed in this 

document, DOE analyzed the benefits 

and burdens of four trial standard levels 

(‘‘TSLs’’) for dehumidifiers. The TSLs 

and their associated benefits and 

burdens are discussed in detail in 

sections V.A through V.C of this 

document. As discussed in section V.C 

of this document, DOE has tentatively 

determined that TSL 3 represents the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. The 

proposed standards, which are 

expressed in Integrated Energy Factor 

(‘‘IEF’’), or the volume of water in liters 

(‘‘L’’) removed by a kilowatt hour 

(‘‘kWh’’) of energy, are shown in Table 

I.1. These proposed standards, if 

adopted, would apply to all 

dehumidifiers listed in Table I.1. 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States starting on the date 3 

years after the publication of the final 

rule for this proposed rulemaking. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76512 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

3The average LCC savings refer to consumers that 

are affected by a standard and are measured relative 

to the efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case, which depicts the market in the 

compliance year in the absence of new or amended 

standards (see section IV.F.9 of this document). The 

simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific 

efficiency levels, is measured relative to the 

baseline product (see section IV.C of this 

document). 

4All monetary values in this document are 

expressed in 2022 dollars. 

5The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) 

energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 

transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency 

standards. For more information on the FFC metric, 

see section IV.H.2 of this document. 

6A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented 

in short tons. 

7 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to 

the no-new-standards case, which reflects key 

assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2023 

(‘‘AEO2023’’). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent 

possible, laws and regulations adopted through 

mid-November 2022, including the Inflation 

Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this document 

for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that 

affect air pollutant emissions. 

TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS

Portable dehumidifier product capacity 

(pints/day) 

Minimum 

integrated 

energy factor 

(L/kWh) 

25.00 or less ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.70 

25.01–50.00 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.01 

50.01 or more .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.10 

Whole-home dehumidifier product case volume (cubic feet): 

8.0 or less ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.22 

More than 8.0 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3.81 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of 

the economic impacts of the proposed 

standards on consumers of 

dehumidifiers, as measured by the 

average life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) savings 

and the simple payback period 

(‘‘PBP’’).3 The average LCC savings are 

positive for all product classes, and the 

PBP is less than the average lifetime of 

dehumidifiers, which is estimated to be 

10 years for portable dehumidifiers and 

12 years for whole-home dehumidifiers 

(see section IV.F.6 of this document). 

TABLE I.2—IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF DEHUMIDIFIERS

Product class 

Average 

LCC savings 

(2022$) 

Simple payback 

period (years) 

Portable dehumidifiers, ≤25.00 pints/day .......................................................................................................... $42 0.9 

Portable dehumidifiers, 25.01–50.00 pints/day ................................................................................................. 81 0.6 

Portable dehumidifiers, >50.00 pints per day ................................................................................................... 31 4.8 

Whole-home dehumidifiers, ≤8.0 cubic feet case volume ................................................................................ 56 6.4 

Whole-home dehumidifiers, >8.0 cubic feet case volume ................................................................................ 146 5.7 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed standards on consumers is 

described in section IV.F of this 

document. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 4

The industry net present value (INPV) 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(2023–2057). Using a real discount rate 

of 8.4 percent, DOE estimates that the 

INPV for manufacturers of 

dehumidifiers in the case without 

amended standards is $158.3 million. 

Under the proposed standards, the 

change in INPV is estimated to range 

from ¥3.3 percent to ¥2.1 percent, 

which is approximately ¥$5.2 million 

to ¥$3.3 million. In order to bring 

products into compliance with amended 

standards, it is estimated that the 

industry would incur total conversion 

costs of $6.9 million. 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed standards on manufacturers is 

described in section IV.J of this 

document. The analytic results of the 

manufacturer impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) 

are presented in section V.B.2 of this 

document. 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for dehumidifiers would save a 

significant amount of energy. Relative to 

the case without amended standards, 

the lifetime energy savings for 

dehumidifiers purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the anticipated 

year of compliance with the amended 

standards (2028–2057) amount to 0.33 

quadrillion British thermal units 

(‘‘Btu’’), or quads.5 This represents a 

savings of 5.8 percent relative to the 

energy use of these products in the case 

without amended standards (referred to 

as the ‘‘no-new-standards case’’). 

The cumulative net present value 

(‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer benefits of 

the proposed standards for 

dehumidifiers ranges from $1.26 billion 

(at a 7-percent discount rate) to $2.61 

billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). 

This NPV expresses the estimated total 

value of future operating cost savings 

minus the estimated increased product 

costs for dehumidifiers purchased from 

2028 through 2057. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

for dehumidifiers are projected to yield 

significant environmental benefits. DOE 

estimates that the proposed standards 

would result in cumulative emission 

reductions (over the same period as for 

energy savings) of 6.94 million metric 

tons (‘‘Mt’’) 6 of carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’), 

1.76 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 

(‘‘SO2’’), 11.81 thousand tons of nitrogen 

oxides (‘‘NOX’’), 51.94 thousand tons of 

methane (‘‘CH4’’), 0.06 thousand tons of 

nitrous oxide (‘‘N2O’’), and 0.01 tons of 

mercury (‘‘Hg’’).7

DOE estimates the value of climate 

benefits from a reduction in greenhouse 

gases (‘‘GHG’’) using four different 

estimates of the social cost (‘‘SC’’) of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76513 

8To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG 

emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates 

presented in the Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 

published in February 2021 by the IWG. (‘‘February 

2021 SC–GHG TSD’’). www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/ 

TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. 

9U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of 

Reducing Directly Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors 

and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at 

www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-tonreducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors. 

10 DOE estimates the economic value of these 

emissions reductions resulting from the considered 

trial standard levels (‘‘TSLs’’) for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of Executive 

Order 12866. 

CO2 (‘‘SC–CO2’’), the social cost of 

methane (‘‘SC–CH4’’), and the social 

cost of nitrous oxide (‘‘SC–N2O’’). 

Together these represent the social cost 

of GHG (‘‘SC–GHG’’). DOE used interim 

SC–GHG values (in terms of benefit per 

ton of GHG avoided) developed by the 

Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 

(‘‘IWG’’).8 The derivation of these values 

is discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. For presentational purposes, 

the climate benefits associated with the 

average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount 

rate are estimated to be $0.40 billion. 

DOE does not have a single central SC– 

GHG point estimate and emphasizes the 

importance and value of considering the 

benefits calculated using all four sets of 

SC–GHG estimates. 

DOE estimated the monetary health 

benefits of SO2 and NOX emissions 

reductions using benefit per ton 

estimates from the Environmental 

Protection Agency,9 as discussed in 

section IV.L of this document. DOE 

estimated the present value of the health 

benefits would be $0.33 billion using a 

7-percent discount rate, and $0.74 

billion using a 3-percent discount rate.10

DOE is currently only monetizing health 

benefits from changes in ambient fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) 

concentrations from two precursors 

(SO2 and NOX), and from changes in 

ambient ozone from one precursor (for 

NOX), but will continue to assess the 

ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct 

PM2.5 emissions. 

Table I.3 summarizes the monetized 

economic benefits and costs expected to 

result from the proposed standards for 

dehumidifiers. There are other 

important unquantified effects, 

including certain unquantified climate 

benefits, unquantified public health 

benefits from the reduction of toxic air 

pollutants and other emissions, 

unquantified energy security benefits, 

and distributional effects, among others. 

TABLE I.3—SUMMARY OF MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

DEHUMIDIFIERS

[Trial Standard Level (‘‘TSL’’) 3] 

Billion 

($2022) 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.75 

Climate Benefits * ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.40 

Health Benefits ** ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.74 

Total Benefits † .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.89 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.14 

Net Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.75 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡ ............................................................................................................................................................................ (0.005)–(0.003) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.34 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.40 

Health Benefits ** ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.33 

Total Benefits † .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.07 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.08 

Net Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.99 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡ ............................................................................................................................................................................ (0.005)–(0.003) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with dehumidifiers shipped in 2028–2057. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits 

that accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028–2057. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2), methane (SC–CH4), and nitrous oxide (SC–N2O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent discount rates; 95th percentile at a 3-percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are 

shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published 

in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits 

and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5

emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC– 

GHG point estimate and emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. 

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and 

IV.H of this document. DOE’s national impacts analysis includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs 

to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis 

on the impacts on manufacturers (i.e., manufacturer impact analysis, or ‘‘MIA’’). See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers’ 

pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule’s 

expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 8.4 percent that is estimated in the 

manufacturer impact analysis (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For dehumidifiers, the

change in INPV ranges from ¥$5 million to ¥$3 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a trial standard level is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table; and the Preservation of Operating Profit 

Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production 

costs. DOE includes the range of estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposal to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the net benefits would range from $3.74 billion to 

$3.75 billion at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $1.98 billion to $1.99 billion at 7-percent discount rate. DOE seeks comment on this approach. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76514 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

11To convert the time series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2023, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (e.g., 2030), and then discounted 

the present value from each year to 2023. Using the 

present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 

payment over a 30-year period, starting in the 

compliance year, that yields the same present value. 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The monetary 

values for the total annualized net 

benefits are (1) the reduced consumer 

operating costs, minus (2) the increase 

in product purchase prices and 

installation costs, plus (3) the value of 

climate and health benefits of emission 

reductions, all annualized.11

The national operating cost savings 

are domestic private U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered products and 

are measured for the lifetime of 

dehumidifiers shipped between 2028 

and 2057. The benefits associated with 

reduced emissions achieved as a result 

of the proposed standards are also 

calculated based on the lifetime of 

dehumidifiers shipped between 2028 

and 2057. Total benefits for both the 3- 

percent and 7-percent cases are 

presented using the average GHG social 

costs with a 3-percent discount rate. 

Estimates of SC–GHG values are 

presented for all four discount rates in 

section V.B.6 of this document. 

Table I.4 presents the total estimated 

monetized benefits and costs associated 

with the proposed standard, expressed 

in terms of annualized values. The 

results under the primary estimate are 

as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced NOX and SO2

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

cost of the standards proposed in this 

rule is $8.55 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual benefits are $142.04 

million in reduced equipment operating 

costs, $22.85 million in climate benefits, 

and $34.54 million in health benefits. In 

this case, the net benefit would amount 

to $190.89 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards is $7.89 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the estimated annual benefits are 

$157.99 million in reduced operating 

costs, $22.85 million in climate benefits, 

and $42.30 million in health benefits. In 

this case, the net benefit would amount 

to $215.24 million per year. 

TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS

[TSL 3] 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary 

estimate 

Low-net-benefits 

estimate 

High-net-benefits 

estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................. 157.99 153.04 163.15 

Climate Benefits * ......................................................................................................... 22.85 22.66 22.93 

Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................... 42.30 41.95 42.42 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................ 223.14 217.65 228.50 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ...................................................................... 7.89 7.94 7.77 

Net Benefits ................................................................................................................. 215.24 209.71 220.74 

Change in Producer Cashflow .....................................................................................

(INPV) ‡‡ ...................................................................................................................... (0.5)–(0.3) (0.5)–(0.3) (0.5)–(0.3) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................. 142.04 138.10 146.50 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) .......................................................................... 22.85 22.66 22.93

Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................... 34.54 34.31 34.64 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................ 199.44 195.07 204.06 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ...................................................................... 8.55 8.58 8.44 

Net Benefits ................................................................................................................. 190.89 186.49 195.62 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡ .................................................................... (0.5)–(0.3) (0.5)–(0.3) (0.5)–(0.3) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with dehumidifiers shipped in 2028–2057. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028¥2057. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO 2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth 

case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low 

Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational 

purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not 

have a single central SC–GHG point estimate and emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets 

of SC–GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 

2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE 

does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. 

‡‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76515 

12Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See 

sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE’s national impacts analysis includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution 

chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by 

the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (i.e., manufacturer impact analysis, or ‘‘MIA’’). 

See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers’ pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule’s expected impact on the INPV. The 

change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 8.4 percent that 

is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average 

cost of capital). For dehumidifiers, the annualized change in INPV ranges from ¥$0.5 million to ¥$0.3 million. DOE accounts for that range of 

likely impacts in analyzing whether a trial standard level is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range 

of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario 

used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table; and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE 

assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE 

includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposal to society, including potential changes in production and 

consumption, which is consistent with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $214.8 million to $214.9 million at 3-percent discount rate and 

would range from $190.4 million to $190.6 million at 7-percent discount rate. DOE seeks comment on this approach. 

DOE’s analysis of the national impacts 

of the proposed standards is described 

in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this 

document. 

D. Conclusion 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Specifically, 

with regards to technological feasibility, 

products achieving these standard levels 

are already commercially available for 

all product classes covered by this 

proposal. As for economic justification, 

DOE’s analysis shows that the benefits 

of the proposed standard exceed, to a 

great extent, the burdens of the 

proposed standards. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3- 

percent discount rate case for GHG 

social costs, the estimated cost of the 

proposed standards for dehumidifiers is 

$8.55 million per year in increased 

product costs, while the estimated 

annual benefits are $142.04 million in 

reduced product operating costs, $22.85 

million in climate benefits, and $34.54 

million in health benefits. The net 

benefit amounts to $190.89 million per 

year. 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.12 For example, some 

covered products and equipment have 

substantial energy consumption occur 

during periods of peak energy demand. 

The impacts of these products on the 

energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than products with 

relatively constant demand. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis. 

As previously mentioned, the 

standards are projected to result in 

estimated national energy savings of 

0.33 quad full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’), the 

equivalent of the primary annual energy 

use of 3.5 million homes. In addition, 

they are projected to reduce CO2

emissions by 6.94 Mt, SO2 emissions by 

1.76 thousand tons, NOX emissions by 

11.81 thousand tons, CH4 emissions by 

51.94 thousand tons, N2O emissions by 

0.06 thousand tons, Hg emissions by 

0.01 tons. Based on these findings, DOE 

has initially determined the energy 

savings from the proposed standard 

levels are ‘‘significant’’ within the 

meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). The 

basis for these tentative conclusions is 

detailed in the remainder of this 

document and the accompanying 

technical support document (‘‘TSD’’). 

DOE also considered more stringent 

energy efficiency levels as potential 

standards and is still considering them 

in this rulemaking. However, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the potential 

burdens of more stringent energy 

efficiency levels would outweigh the 

projected benefits. 

Based on consideration of the public 

comments DOE receives in response to 

this document and related information 

collected and analyzed during the 

course of this rulemaking effort, DOE 

may adopt energy efficiency levels 

presented in this document that are 

either higher or lower than the proposed 

standards, or some combination of 

level(s) that incorporate the proposed 

standards in part. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed rule as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for dehumidifiers. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of 

EPCA established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. 

These products include dehumidifiers, 

the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(cc)) EPCA prescribed initial energy 

conservation standards for these 

products. Id. EPCA further provides 

that, not later than 6 years after the 

issuance of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6296). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered products 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant 

waivers of Federal preemption for 

particular State laws or regulations, in 

accordance with the procedures and 

other provisions set forth under EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76516 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of 

covered products must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 

these test procedures to determine 

whether the products comply with 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test 

procedures for dehumidifiers appear at 

title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 430, subpart B, 

appendix X1. 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including dehumidifiers. Any new or 

amended standard for a covered product 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 

determines is technologically feasible 

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

6295(o)(2)(A) Furthermore, DOE may 

not adopt any standard that would not 

result in the significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) 

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard: (1) for certain products, 

including dehumidifiers, 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)) 

In deciding whether a proposed 

standard is economically justified, DOE 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 

this determination after receiving 

comments on the proposed standard, 

and by considering, to the greatest 

extent practicable, the following seven 

statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy (or as applicable, water) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) considers relevant. 

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

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the applicable test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

EPCA also contains what is known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing 

any amended standard that either 

increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of a covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the 

Secretary may not prescribe an amended 

or new standard if interested persons 

have established by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the standard is likely 

to result in the unavailability in the 

United States in any covered product 

type (or class) of performance 

characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes 

that are substantially the same as those 

generally available in the United States. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

Additionally, EPCA specifies 

requirements when promulgating an 

energy conservation standard for a 

covered product that has two or more 

subcategories. DOE must specify a 

different standard level for a type or 

class of product that has the same 

function or intended use, if DOE 

determines that products within such 

group: (A) consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing 

such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

Finally, pursuant to the amendments 

contained in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’), 

Public Law 110–140, any final rule for 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards promulgated after July 1, 

2010, is required to address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when 

DOE adopts a standard for a covered 

product after that date, it must, if 

justified by the criteria for adoption of 

standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and 

off mode energy use into a single 

standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt 

a separate standard for such energy use 

for that product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current test 

procedures for dehumidifiers address 

standby mode and off mode energy use. 

In this proposed rulemaking, DOE 

intends to incorporate such energy use 

into any amended energy conservation 

standards that it may adopt. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

In a final rule published on June 13, 

2016 (‘‘June 2016 Final Rule’’), DOE 

prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for 

dehumidifiers manufactured on and 

after June 13, 2019. 81 FR 38338. These 

standards are set forth in DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(v)(2). 

TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS

Portable dehumidifier product capacity 

(pints/day) 

Minimum 

integrated 

energy factor 

(L/kWh) 

25.00 or less ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.30 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76517 

13The parenthetical reference provides a 

reference for information located in the docket of 

DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for dehumidifiers (Docket No. EERE– 

2019–BT–STD–0043, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID 

number, page of that document). 

TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS—Continued 

Portable dehumidifier product capacity 

(pints/day) 

Minimum 

integrated 

energy factor 

(L/kWh) 

25.01–50.00 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.60 

50.01 or more .................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.80 

Whole-home dehumidifier product case volume 

(cubic feet) 

 

8.0 or less .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.77 

More than 8.0 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.41 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Dehumidifiers 

On June 4, 2021, DOE published a 

Request for Information (‘‘June 2021 

RFI’’) in the Federal Register to collect 

data and information to inform its 

decision, consistent with its obligations 

under EPCA, as to whether the 

Department should proceed with an 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for an amended energy 

conservation standard for 

dehumidifiers. 86 FR 29964, 29965. 

DOE published a notice of public 

meeting and availability of the 

preliminary TSD on June 22, 2022 

(‘‘June 2022 Preliminary Analysis’’). 87 

FR 37240. DOE received comments in 

response to the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis from the interested parties 

listed in Table II.2. 

TABLE II.2—JUNE 2022 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS WRITTEN COMMENTS

Commenter(s) Abbreviation 

Comment 

number in 

the docket 

Commenter type 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 

National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.

Joint Commenters ... 21 Efficiency Organizations. 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ............................................................................. AHAM ...................... 22 Trade Association. 

Madison Indoor Air Quality ............................................................................................................ MIAQ ....................... 20 Manufacturer. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.13 To the extent that 

interested parties have provided written 

comments that are substantively 

consistent with any oral comments 

provided during the July 19, 2022, 

public meeting, DOE cites the written 

comments throughout this document. 

Any oral comments provided during the 

webinar that are not substantively 

addressed by written comments are 

summarized and cited separately 

throughout this document. 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is 

deviating from the provision in 

appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR 

stages for an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. Section 6(a)(2) of 

appendix A states that if the Department 

determines it is appropriate to proceed 

with a rulemaking, the preliminary 

stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend 

an energy conservation standard that 

DOE will undertake will include a 

framework document and preliminary 

analysis, or an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking. While DOE 

published a preliminary analysis for this 

proposed rulemaking, DOE did not 

publish a framework document in 

conjunction with the preliminary 

analysis. 87 FR 37240. DOE notes, 

however, chapter 2 of the June 2022 

Preliminary TSD that accompanied the 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis— 

entitled Analytical Framework, 

Comments from Interested Parties, and 

DOE Responses—describes the general 

analytical framework that DOE uses in 

evaluating and developing potential 

amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE also previously 

published the June 2021 RFI, in which 

DOE identified and sought comment on 

the analyses that would be conducted in 

support of an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for dehumidifiers. 

86 FR 29964, 29965–29966. As such, 

publication of a separate framework 

document would be largely redundant 

of previously published documents. 

Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A specifies 

that the length of the public comment 

period for a NOPR will vary depending 

upon the circumstances of the particular 

proposed rulemaking, but will not be 

less than 75 calendar days. For this 

NOPR, DOE has opted to instead 

provide a 60-day comment period. DOE 

requested comment in the June 2021 RFI 

on the technical and economic analyses 

and provided stakeholders a 45-day 

comment period, after granting a 15-day 

comment period extension. 86 FR 29964 

and 86 FR 34639. Additionally, DOE 

provided a 60-day comment period for 

the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. 87 

FR 37240, 37241. The analytical 

methods used for this NOPR are similar 

to those used in previous rulemaking 

documents. As such, DOE believes a 60- 

day comment period is appropriate and 

will provide interested parties with a 

meaningful opportunity to comment on 

the proposed rule. Section 8(d)(1) of 

appendix A specifies that test procedure 

rulemakings establishing methodologies 

used to evaluate proposed energy 

conservation standards will be finalized 

prior to publication of a NOPR 

proposing new or amended energy 

conservation standards. Additionally, 

new test procedures and amended test 

procedures that impact measured energy 

use or efficiency will be finalized at 

least 180 days prior to the close of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76518 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

14Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency 

levels for each product class. The TSLs considered 

for this NOPR are described in section V.A of this 

document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis 

that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9- 

year period. 

comment period for (1) a NOPR 

proposing new or amended energy 

conservation standards or (2) a notice of 

proposed determination that standards 

do not need to be amended. In the 

dehumidifier test procedure final rule 

published on July 26, 2023, (July 2023 

Test Procedure Final Rule), DOE 

amended the test procedures for 

dehumidifiers. 88 FR 48035. DOE 

determined that the amendments 

adopted will not alter (i.e., will not 

impact) the measured efficiency of 

dehumidifiers. Id. As such, the 

requirement that the amended test 

procedure be finalized at least 180 days 

prior to the close of the comment period 

for this NOPR does not apply. 

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed this proposal after 

considering oral and written comments, 

data, and information from interested 

parties that represent a variety of 

interests. The following discussion 

addresses issues raised by these 

commenters. 

A. Scope of Coverage 

This NOPR covers those consumer 

products that meet the definition of 

‘‘dehumidifier’’ as codified at 10 CFR 

430.2. 

EPCA defines a dehumidifier as a 

product that is a self-contained, 

electrically operated, and mechanically 

encased assembly, consisting of a 

refrigerated surface (evaporator) that 

condenses moisture from the 

atmosphere, a refrigerating system with 

an electric motor, an air-circulating fan, 

and a means for collecting or disposing 

of the condensate. (42 U.S.C. 6291(34)) 

In a final rule published on July 31, 

2015 (‘‘July 2015 Test Procedure Final 

Rule’’), DOE clarified that this definition 

of a dehumidifier, codified at 10 CFR 

430.2, does not apply to portable air 

conditioners, room air conditioners, or 

packaged terminal air conditioners. 80 

FR 45802, 45804–45805 (July 31, 2015). 

DOE also added definitions for portable 

dehumidifiers and whole-home 

dehumidifiers to 10 CFR 430.2. Portable 

dehumidifiers are designed to operate 

within the dehumidified space without 

ducting attached, although ducting may 

be attached optionally. Whole-home 

dehumidifiers are designed to be 

installed with inlet ducting for return 

process air and outlet ducting that 

supplies dehumidified process air to 

one or more locations in the 

dehumidified space. 10 CFR 430.2 DOE 

further established that dehumidifiers 

that are able to operate as both a 

portable and whole-home dehumidifier 

would be tested and rated for both 

configurations. 80 FR 45802, 45805– 

45806. See section IV.A.1 of this 

document for discussion of the product 

classes analyzed in this NOPR. 

B. Test Procedure 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use these test procedures to certify to 

DOE that their product complies with 

energy conservation standards and to 

quantify the efficiency of their product. 

DOE’s current energy conservation 

standards for dehumidifiers are 

expressed in terms of IEF in L/kWh. 10 

CFR 430.32(v)(2) and 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix X1. 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening 

analysis based on information gathered 

on all current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the products or 

equipment that are the subject of the 

proposed rulemaking. As the first step 

in such an analysis, DOE develops a list 

of technology options for consideration 

in consultation with manufacturers, 

design engineers, and other interested 

parties. DOE then determines which of 

those means for improving efficiency 

are technologically feasible. DOE 

considers technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. See sections 

6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 

CFR part 430 subpart C (‘‘appendix A’’). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety; and (4) unique pathway 

proprietary technologies. See sections 

6(b)(3)(ii)–(v) and 7(b)(2)–(5) of 

appendix A. Section IV.B of this 

document discusses the results of the 

screening analysis for dehumidifiers, 

particularly the designs DOE 

considered, those it screened out, and 

those that are the basis for the standards 

considered in this proposed rulemaking. 

For further details on the screening 

analysis for this proposed rulemaking, 

see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt a new 

or amended standard for a type or class 

of covered product, it must determine 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy 

efficiency for dehumidifiers, using the 

design parameters for the most efficient 

products available on the market or in 

working prototypes. The max-tech 

levels that DOE determined for this 

proposed rulemaking are described in 

section IV.C.1.b of this document and in 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each trial standard level (‘‘TSL’’), 

DOE projected energy savings from 

application of the TSL to dehumidifiers 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the year of compliance with 

the proposed standards (2028–2057).14

The savings are measured over the 

entire lifetime of dehumidifiers 

purchased in the previous 30-year 

period. DOE quantified the energy 

savings attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of 

energy consumption that reflects how 

the market for a product would likely 

evolve in the absence of amended 

energy conservation standards. 

DOE used its national impact analysis 

(‘‘NIA’’) spreadsheet model to estimate 

national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) from 

potential amended or new standards for 

dehumidifiers. The NIA spreadsheet 

model (described in section IV.H of this 

document) calculates energy savings in 

terms of site energy, which is the energy 

directly consumed by products at the 

locations where they are used. For 

electricity, DOE reports national energy 

savings in terms of primary energy 

savings, which is the savings in the 

energy that is used to generate and 

transmit the site electricity. DOE also 

calculates NES in terms of FFC energy 

savings. The FFC metric includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76519 

15The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s 

statement of policy and notice of policy 

amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as 

amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). 

16Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 

fuels), and thus presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards.15 DOE’s 

approach is based on the calculation of 

an FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered products or 

equipment. For more information on 

FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1 

of this document. 

2. Significance of Savings 

To adopt any new or amended 

standards for a covered product, DOE 

must determine that such action would 

result in significant energy savings. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.16 For example, some 

covered products and equipment have 

most of their energy consumption occur 

during periods of peak energy demand. 

The impacts of these products on the 

energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than products with 

relatively constant demand. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis, taking into account the 

significance of cumulative FFC national 

energy savings, the cumulative FFC 

emissions reductions, and the need to 

confront the global climate crisis, among 

other factors. 

As stated, the standard levels 

proposed in this document are projected 

to result in national energy savings of 

0.33 quad, the equivalent of the primary 

annual energy use of 3.5 million homes. 

Based on the amount of FFC savings, the 

corresponding reduction in emissions, 

and the need to confront the global 

climate crisis, DOE has initially 

determined the energy savings from the 

proposed standard levels are 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted previously, EPCA provides 

seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy 

conservation standard is economically 

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

(VII)) The following sections discuss 

how DOE has addressed each of those 

seven factors in this proposed 

rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a 

potential new or amended standard on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, 

as discussed in section IV.J of this 

document. DOE first uses an annual 

cash-flow approach to determine the 

quantitative impacts. This step includes 

both a short-term assessment—based on 

the cost and capital requirements during 

the period between when a regulation is 

issued and when entities must comply 

with the regulation—and a long-term 

assessment over a 30-year period. The 

industry-wide impacts analyzed include 

(1) INPV, which values the industry on 

the basis of expected future cash flows, 

(2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in 

revenue and income, and (4) other 

measures of impact, as appropriate. 

Second, DOE analyzes and reports the 

impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including impacts on 

small manufacturers. Third, DOE 

considers the impact of standards on 

domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of various DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and PBP associated with new or 

amended standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value of the consumer costs and 

benefits expected to result from 

particular standards. DOE also evaluates 

the impacts of potential standards on 

identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be affected disproportionately 

by a standard. 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product in the type (or class) compared 

to any increase in the price of, or in the 

initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of, the covered product that 

are likely to result from a standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts 

this comparison in its LCC and PBP 

analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

analysis requires a variety of inputs, 

such as product prices, product energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and discount rates appropriate 

for consumers. To account for 

uncertainty and variability in specific 

inputs, such as product lifetime and 

discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of 

values, with probabilities attached to 

each value. 

The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

due to a more stringent standard by the 

change in annual operating cost for the 

year that standards are assumed to take 

effect. 

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE 

assumes that consumers will purchase 

the covered products in the first year of 

compliance with new or amended 

standards. The LCC savings for the 

considered efficiency levels are 

calculated relative to the case that 

reflects projected market trends in the 

absence of new or amended standards. 

DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.F of this document. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

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

As discussed in section III.D of this 

document, DOE uses the NIA 

spreadsheet models to project national 

energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing product classes and in 

evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE 

evaluates potential standards that would 

not lessen the utility or performance of 

the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data 

available to DOE, the standards 

proposed in this document would not 

reduce the utility or performance of the 

products under consideration in this 

proposed rulemaking. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76520 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the 

Attorney General to determine the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary within 60 

days of the publication of a proposed 

rule, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will 

transmit a copy of this proposed rule to 

the Attorney General with a request that 

the DOJ provide its determination on 

this issue. DOE will publish and 

respond to the Attorney General’s 

determination in the final rule. DOE 

invites comment from the public 

regarding the competitive impacts that 

are likely to result from this proposed 

rule. In addition, stakeholders may also 

provide comments separately to DOJ 

regarding these potential impacts. See 

the ADDRESSES section for information 

to send comments to DOJ. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

DOE also considers the need for 

national energy and water conservation 

in determining whether a new or 

amended standard is economically 

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

The energy savings from the proposed 

standards are likely to provide 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the Nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

also may result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

Nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

Nation’s needed power generation 

capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of 

this document. 

DOE maintains that environmental 

and public health benefits associated 

with the more efficient use of energy are 

important to take into account when 

considering the need for national energy 

conservation. The proposed standards 

are likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and GHGs 

associated with energy production and 

use. DOE conducts an emissions 

analysis to estimate how potential 

standards may affect these emissions, as 

discussed in section IV.K of this 

document; the estimated emissions 

impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of 

this document. DOE also estimates the 

economic value of emissions reductions 

resulting from the considered TSLs, as 

discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. 

g. Other Factors 

In determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified, DOE may consider any other 

factors that the Secretary deems to be 

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

To the extent DOE identifies any 

relevant information regarding 

economic justification that does not fit 

into the other categories described 

previously, DOE could consider such 

information under ‘‘other factors.’’ 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

consumer of a product that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

resulting from the standard, as 

calculated under the applicable DOE 

test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effects that proposed 

energy conservation standards would 

have on the payback period for 

consumers. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to consumers, manufacturers, 

the Nation, and the environment, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section IV.F.9 of this 

document. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE has performed for this proposed 

rulemaking with regard to 

dehumidifiers. Separate subsections 

address each component of DOE’s 

analyses. 

DOE used several analytical tools to 

estimate the impact of the standards 

proposed in this document. The first 

tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the 

LCC savings and PBP of potential 

amended or new energy conservation 

standards. The national impacts 

analysis uses a second spreadsheet set 

that provides shipment projections and 

calculates national energy savings and 

net present value of total consumer 

costs and savings expected to result 

from potential energy conservation 

standards. DOE uses the third 

spreadsheet tool, the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), to 

assess manufacturer impacts of potential 

standards. These three spreadsheet tools 

are available on the DOE website for this 

proposed rulemaking: 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2019-BT-STD-0043. Additionally, DOE 

used output from the latest version of 

the Energy Information Administration’s 

(‘‘EIA’s’’) Annual Energy Outlook 

(‘‘AEO’’), a widely known energy 

projection for the United States, for the 

emissions and utility impact analyses. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the products. This activity 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, based primarily 

on publicly available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this proposed 

rulemaking include (1) a determination 

of the scope of the rulemaking and 

product classes, (2) manufacturers and 

industry structure, (3) existing 

efficiency programs, (4) shipments 

information, (5) market and industry 

trends; and (6) technologies or design 

options that could improve the energy 

efficiency of dehumidifiers. The key 

findings of DOE’s market assessment are 

summarized in the following sections. 

See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for 

further discussion of the market and 

technology assessment. 

1. Product Classes 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

must specify a different standard level 

for a type or class of product that has 

the same function or intended use, if 

DOE determines that products within 

such group: (A) consume a different 

kind of energy from that consumed by 

other covered products within such type 

(or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76521 

17See posted comment on www.regulations.gov, 

Docket No. EERE–2019–BT–TP–0026–0008–0015. 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing 

such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

DOE currently defines separate energy 

conservation standards using five 

dehumidifier product classes (10 CFR 

430.32(v)(2)): 

Portable dehumidifiers have three 

product classes based on the product 

capacity: Product Class 1 are those with 

a capacity of 25.00 pints/day or less, 

Product Class 2 dehumidifiers have a 

capacity of 25.01 to 50.00 pints/day, and 

Product Class 3 dehumidifiers have a 

capacity of 50.01 pints/day or more. 

Whole-home dehumidifiers have two 

product classes based on product case 

volume: Product Class 4 dehumidifiers 

have a case volume of 8.0 cubic feet or 

less, and Product Class 5 have a case 

volume of more than 8.0 cubic feet. 

According to MIAQ, many of the units 

that are meant to be placed in the 

crawlspace of a home meet the portable 

dehumidifier definition due to their 

installation and configuration but have 

the same manufacturer production cost 

(‘‘MPC’’) as whole-home dehumidifiers. 

MIAQ stated that DOE did not clearly 

distinguish the difference between 

typical portable dehumidifiers and 

portable crawlspace dehumidifiers in 

the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis and 

requested that DOE keep this difference 

in mind when updating the TSD. 

(MIAQ, No. 20 at pp. 1–2) 

Dehumidifiers are classified based on 

their ducting configuration during 

consumer use, according to the 

definitions established in 10 CFR 430.2. 

Portable dehumidifiers operate in 

applications that require space 

dehumidification without ducting. 

Whole-home dehumidifiers operate 

with ducting, typically in conjunction 

with a heating, ventilating, and air 

conditioning (‘‘HVAC’’) system. 

Dehumidifiers installed in basement 

crawlspaces without ducting are 

classified as portable dehumidifiers. 

DOE is not aware of any specific 

performance-related feature that would 

justify a new product class for portable 

dehumidifiers installed in basement 

crawlspaces. Therefore, when 

conducting the engineering analysis, as 

discussed further in section IV.C of this 

document and chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD, DOE considered the MPCs of a 

variety of units in the largest portable 

dehumidifier product class, Product 

Class 3. 

2. Technology Options 

In the preliminary market analysis 

and technology assessment, DOE 

identified 16 technology options that 

would be expected to improve the 

efficiency of dehumidifiers, as measured 

by the DOE test procedure. 

TABLE IV.2—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS

1. Microchannel heat exchangers. 

2. Built-in hygrometer/humidistat. 

3. Improved compressor efficiency. 

4. Improved condenser and evaporator performance. 

5. Improved controls. 

6. Improved defrost methods. 

7. Improved demand-defrost controls. 

8. Improved fan and fan-motor efficiency. 

9. Improved flow-control devices. 

10. Low-standby-loss electronic controls. 

11. Washable air filters. 

12. Pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchangers. 

13. Heat pipes. 

14. Improved refrigeration system insulation. 

15. Refrigerant-desiccant systems. 

16. Alternative refrigerants. 

Several commenters provided 

feedback on some of these technology 

options. These comments are 

summarized below, along with DOE’s 

responses. 

a. Improved Compressor Efficiency 

MIAQ stated that finding suitable 

high-efficiency compressors at the 

capacities and price points needed for 

dehumidifiers is a challenge, 

particularly with the transition to new 

refrigerants. According to MIAQ, the 

whole-home and crawlspace 

dehumidifier industry does not have 

sufficient volume to garner the full 

attention of compressor manufacturers. 

(MIAQ, No. 20 at p. 2) 

DOE has considered MIAQ’s 

comments regarding high-efficiency 

compressor availability, and for the 

reasons discussed in chapter 3 of the 

NOPR TSD, expects that by the time that 

compliance is required with any new 

dehumidifier standards, dehumidifier 

manufacturers will transition to 

compressors utilizing R–32 in place of 

compressors designed for the 

refrigerants currently in use. DOE 

acknowledges that there is significant 

uncertainty regarding the availability of 

the highest-efficiency single-speed 

compressors designed for operation 

with R–32 refrigerant that were 

analyzed for the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, particularly in the smallest 

capacities. For this NOPR analysis, DOE 

has limited the improved compressor 

efficiency technology option to the 

maximum R–32 compressor efficiency 

that was observed within its teardown 

sample of dehumidifiers, to ensure that 

such compressors are already 

commercially available to the 

dehumidifier industry. Furthermore, 

should this NOPR proceed to a final 

rule, compliance with any amended 

standards would not be required until 3 

years after a final rule is published. DOE 

expects that this 3-year compliance 

period would provide adequate time for 

dehumidifier original equipment 

manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) to source a 

sufficient supply of more efficient R–32 

compressors ahead of anticipated 

demand. DOE expects that standards, if 

adopted, would therefore provide 

sufficient time and regulatory certainty 

for manufacturers and compressor 

suppliers to establish additional 

capacity in the supply chain, if needed. 

MIAQ reiterated its comment on the 

June 2022 Dehumidifier Test Procedure 

NOPR17 that variable-speed 

compressors do not provide sufficient 

energy savings to justify the significant 

increase in cost required to implement 

this technology, especially in the 

consumer product market. (MIAQ, No. 

20 at p. 3) 

In the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE considered variablespeed compressors as part of the 

technology assessment, but took into 

account only their full-load efficiency. 

As discussed in chapter 3 of the 

preliminary TSD, the DOE test 

procedure at appendix X1 does not 

attribute any partial-load efficiency 

improvements to variable-speed 

dehumidifiers as the test procedures for 

room air conditioners and portable air 

conditioners do for units with variablespeed compressors, because variablespeed dehumidifiers must maintain a 

constant evaporator temperature below 

the dew point regardless of the amount 

of moisture present in the room. This 

provides no opportunity for energy 

savings. DOE also noted the costs 

associated with implementing variablespeed compressors and accounted for 

these costs in the engineering analysis 

where appropriate. 

Since publication of the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, additional market 

research, manufacturer interviews, and 

input from commenters led DOE to 

understand that variable-speed 

compressors do not offer efficiency 

benefits sufficient to justify the costs 

and design challenges associated with 

implementing them for dehumidifiers. 

Therefore, in the analysis for this NOPR, 

DOE did not consider variable-speed 

compressors as a design option to 

improve compressor efficiency. See 

chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76522 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

additional discussion about variablespeed compressors. 

AHAM requested that DOE evaluate 

whether the use of variable-frequency 

drives and similar high frequency 

components will lead to increased 

nuisance tripping of ground-fault 

circuit-interrupters (‘‘GFCIs’’) and 

associated cost implications. According 

to AHAM, nuisance tripping may 

require a consumer to call an electrician 

to change a breaker or replace a unit and 

could lead to less efficient operation, as 

continuous dehumidification over time 

is more efficient than interrupted 

dehumidification. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 

7) 

DOE is aware that when 

implementing variable-frequency drives, 

as for both variable-speed compressors 

and fan blower electronically 

commutated motors (‘‘ECMs’’), it is 

possible that GFCI systems will trip 

without a fault present, requiring a 

manual reset of the dehumidifier by the 

consumer. However, DOE understands 

that GFCI tripping, even for units with 

variable-speed drives, can generally be 

mitigated through the use of best 

practices for reducing leakage current, 

such as minimizing ECM cable length 

and ensuring that filtered and unfiltered 

cables are separated to whatever extent 

possible to reduce leakage current. 

Additionally, optimizing the variablefrequency controller power filter to 

reduce total leakage current to levels 

below the GFCI detection limits can 

prevent GFCI tripping. Furthermore, 

DOE does not have any information on 

the prevalence of nuisance tripping 

events or on the potential impact of 

such trips on consumer utility or 

dehumidifier energy use. DOE notes that 

despite the potential for nuisance 

tripping, a wide range of appliances on 

the market today, including 

dehumidifiers, implement variablefrequency drives in their designs. The 

inclusion of these variable-frequency 

drive designs in units on the market 

suggests that they do not have a 

significant impact on the consumer 

utility of these products. Therefore, DOE 

is continuing to consider ECMs for fan 

blowers as a technology option for the 

NOPR engineering analysis. However, 

for the reasons discussed above, DOE 

did not consider variable-speed 

compressors as a technology option to 

improve compressor efficiency in this 

NOPR analysis. 

b. Washable Air Filters 

MIAQ did not support the use of 

washable air filters and stated that in a 

limited study washable filters were 

changed less frequently than disposable 

filters, leading to reduced airflow and 

reduced efficiency. (MIAQ, No. 20 at p. 

3) 

DOE understands that the efficiency 

impacts due to air filters are dependent 

on regular consumer maintenance. As 

DOE noted in the technology assessment 

in chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD, it 

is difficult to predict the amount of 

energy savings that could be realized 

with the addition of washable air filters, 

as it is dependent on the specific 

dehumidifier model and use 

characteristics, and on the degree to 

which the consumer takes advantage of 

this feature. DOE also noted in the 

preliminary TSD that most 

dehumidifiers incorporate an air filter 

and that most manufacturers design the 

air filters to be removable and washable. 

Therefore, DOE did not consider 

washable air filters as a design option to 

improve efficiency in the engineering 

analysis for the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis. The information that MIAQ 

provided regarding the efficiency 

impacts of washable air filters further 

supports DOE’s preliminary 

determination not to include washable 

air filters as a design option in the 

engineering analysis, and in light of the 

uncertainty and lack of sufficient data as 

to any efficiency benefit associated with 

them and the prevalence of them in 

dehumidifiers already on the market, 

DOE has tentatively removed from 

consideration washable air filters as a 

technology option in this NOPR. 

c. Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers 

According to MIAQ, air-to-air heat 

exchangers add significant cost and 

complexity to the design, MPC, and 

installation of the unit and typically 

push the unit into the greater than 8 

cubic foot category where minimum 

efficiency values are considerably 

higher. (MIAQ, No. 20 at p. 3) 

DOE considers the costs of design 

options in the engineering analysis. 

Although DOE is aware that air-to-air 

heat exchangers are implemented in 

many whole-home dehumidifiers with 

case volumes greater than 8 cubic feet, 

DOE did not implement air-to-air heat 

exchangers as a design option to achieve 

higher efficiency levels in the NOPR 

engineering analysis because 

dehumidifiers with size constraints that 

allow air-to-air heat exchangers already 

implement them and they require too 

much case volume increase to 

implement for other units. (See chapter 

5 of the NOPR TSD for additional 

details.) 

d. Alternative Refrigerants 

The Joint Commenters supported 

DOE’s decision to consider R–32 

compressors as a design option for 

dehumidifiers due to their significant 

potential to improve efficiencies, and 

agreed that R–32 will likely be 

acceptable for use in dehumidifiers by 

the time amended standards come into 

effect. The Joint Commenters noted that 

in July 2022, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) proposed to 

list R–32 as acceptable for use in new 

residential dehumidifiers. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 21 at p. 1) 

MIAQ requested that DOE consider 

the impact on efficiency that any new 

refrigerant would have on 

dehumidifiers. Although some 

refrigerants may provide efficiency 

improvements, optimizing the unit’s 

performance would require time and the 

assistance of component suppliers. 

(MIAQ, No. 20 at p. 3) 

DOE is aware that new refrigerant 

regulations from entities such as the 

California Air Resource Board (‘‘CARB’’) 

are prompting an industry-wide 

refrigerant changeover. Based on 

feedback received during the 

manufacturer interview process, DOE 

expects that the process of redesigning 

and optimizing dehumidifiers for new 

refrigerants such as R–32 will be part of 

the typical new unit design process, not 

a result of any amended standards that 

DOE may adopt. Additionally, DOE 

estimates that the implementation of R– 

32 in dehumidifiers is unlikely to result 

in an efficiency increase due to the 

refrigerant changeover alone, although 

compressors designed for R–32 may be 

slightly more efficient than compressors 

designed for R–410a due to other design 

improvements. Therefore, given this 

industry-wide refrigerant changeover 

expected to occur by the compliance 

date of any new dehumidifier standards, 

in this NOPR analysis DOE considered 

the impact of compressor improvements 

on overall dehumidifier efficiency only 

for those compressors using R–32, 

assuming that manufacturers will 

already have transitioned to 

refrigeration systems optimized for the 

new refrigerant. 

DOE requests comment on the effects 

of EPA and CARB regulations on 

refrigerant choices and on whether 

changes in refrigerant will affect 

manufacturer’s ability to achieve the 

efficiency levels in the NOPR analysis 

and the availability of high-efficiency 

R–32 compressors. 

For further discussion of the 

cumulative regulatory burden, see 

section V.B.2.e of this document. 

e. Low-Standby-Loss Electronic Controls 

According to AHAM, low standbyloss electronic controls save as little as 

1 watt of power and have a minimal 

impact to overall energy savings that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76523 

18U.S. Patent No. 10,845,069. 

does not warrant the cost of 

implementing this technology option, 

and should therefore have been 

screened out by DOE. (AHAM, No. 22 at 

p. 4) 

In the engineering analysis, DOE 

accounts for the cost relative to the 

efficiency benefit of all technologies that 

pass the screening analysis and are 

considered, as discussed. See chapter 3 

of the NOPR TSD for discussion of the 

potential efficiency benefits of lowstandby-loss electronic controls and 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for further 

discussion of the costs of this 

technology. 

f. Multi-Circuited Evaporator and 

Secondary Condenser Coils 

Since publication of the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, DOE became 

aware of at least one whole-home 

dehumidifier on the market that 

implements a novel refrigeration loop 

design. This patented design ‘‘causes 

part of the refrigerant within the system 

to evaporate and condense twice in one 

refrigeration cycle, thereby increasing 

the compressor capacity over typical 

systems without adding any additional 

power to the compressor.’’ 18 DOE has 

observed that this technology has 

resulted in a unit that is at least 4- 

percent more efficient than any other 

unit available on the market and a 

significant reduction in case volume 

compared to units with similar 

dehumidification capacities. Therefore, 

DOE has included multi-circuited 

evaporator and secondary condenser 

coil refrigerant systems as an additional 

technology option for this NOPR. See 

chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional discussion of this technology. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following five screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking: 

(1) Technological feasibility. 

Technologies that are not incorporated 

in commercial products or in 

commercially viable, existing prototypes 

will not be considered further. 

(2) Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production of a technology in 

commercial products and reliable 

installation and servicing of the 

technology could not be achieved on the 

scale necessary to serve the relevant 

market at the time of the projected 

compliance date of the standard, then 

that technology will not be considered 

further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility. If a 

technology is determined to have a 

significant adverse impact on the utility 

of the product to subgroups of 

consumers, or result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not be considered 

further. 

(4) Safety of technologies. If it is 

determined that a technology would 

have significant adverse impacts on 

health or safety, it will not be 

considered further. 

(5) Unique-pathway proprietary 

technologies. If a technology has 

proprietary protection and represents a 

unique pathway to achieving a given 

efficiency level, it will not be 

considered further, due to the potential 

for monopolistic concerns. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b). 

In summary, if DOE determines that a 

technology, or a combination of 

technologies, fails to meet one or more 

of the listed five criteria, it will be 

excluded from further consideration in 

the engineering analysis. The reasons 

for eliminating any technology are 

discussed in the following sections. 

The subsequent sections include 

comments from interested parties 

pertinent to the screening criteria, 

DOE’s evaluation of each technology 

option against the screening analysis 

criteria, and whether DOE determined 

that a technology option should be 

excluded (‘‘screened out’’) based on the 

screening criteria. 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

In the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE screened out pre-cooling 

air-to-air heat exchangers and heat pipes 

from the analysis for portable 

dehumidifiers with capacities up to and 

including 50 pints/day. DOE 

determined that these dehumidifiers 

could not accommodate the significant 

increases in case size and weight 

required to implement these 

technologies without a significant 

adverse effect on consumer utility 

(screening criterion 3). 

AHAM agreed that implementation of 

pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchangers is 

applicable only to high-capacity 

portable dehumidifiers in Product Class 

3 and requested that DOE recognize that 

current dehumidifier casings may not 

accommodate the increase in 

components and product size associated 

with this technology option. (AHAM, 

No. 22 at p. 4) 

For the reasons given in the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, DOE is 

maintaining the same approach to air-toair heat exchangers and heat pipes in 

this NOPR analysis. See chapter 4 of the 

NOPR TSD for further discussion. 

DOE is also screening out multicircuited evaporator and secondary 

condenser coil refrigerant systems, a 

technology newly considered for the 

NOPR per section IV.A.2.f of this 

document, because it represents a 

unique-pathway proprietary technology. 

See chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD for 

further discussion. 

2. Remaining Technologies 

Through a review of each technology, 

DOE tentatively concludes that all of the 

other identified technologies listed in 

section IV.A.2 of this document meet all 

five screening criteria to be examined 

further as design options in DOE’s 

NOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did 

not screen out the following technology 

options: 

TABLE IV.3—RETAINED DESIGN OPTIONS FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS

1. Microchannel heat exchangers. 

2. Built-in hygrometer/humidistat. 

3. Improved compressor efficiency. 

4. Improved condenser and evaporator performance. 

5. Improved controls. 

6. Improved defrost methods. 

7. Improved demand-defrost controls. 

8. Improved fan and fan-motor efficiency. 

9. Improved flow-control devices. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76524 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE IV.3—RETAINED DESIGN OPTIONS FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS—Continued 

10. Low-standby-loss electronic controls. 

11. Pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchanger (high-capacity portable and whole-home dehumidifiers only). 

12. Heat pipes (high-capacity portable and whole-home dehumidifiers only). 

13. Improved refrigeration system insulation. 

14. Refrigerant-desiccant systems. 

15. Alternative refrigerants. 

DOE has initially determined that 

these technology options are 

technologically feasible because they are 

being used or have previously been used 

in commercially available products or 

working prototypes. DOE also finds that 

all of the remaining technology options 

meet the other screening criteria (i.e., 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service and do not result in adverse 

impacts on consumer utility, product 

availability, health, or safety, uniquepathway proprietary technologies). For 

additional details, see chapter 4 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency and cost of 

dehumidifiers. There are two elements 

to consider in the engineering analysis; 

the selection of efficiency levels to 

analyze (i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) 

and the determination of product cost at 

each efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 

analysis’’). In determining the 

performance of higher-efficiency 

products, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each product class, DOE estimates 

the baseline cost, as well as the 

incremental cost for the product at 

efficiency levels above the baseline. The 

output of the engineering analysis is a 

set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that are 

used in downstream analyses (i.e., the 

LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA). 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the engineering analysis: (1) 

relying on observed efficiency levels in 

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level 

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

design options to a baseline model (i.e., 

the design-option approach). Using the 

efficiency-level approach, the efficiency 

levels established for the analysis are 

determined based on the market 

distribution of existing products (in 

other words, based on the range of 

efficiencies and efficiency level 

‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the 

market). Using the design option 

approach, the efficiency levels 

established for the analysis are 

determined through detailed 

engineering calculations and/or 

computer simulations of the efficiency 

improvements from implementing 

specific design options that have been 

identified in the technology assessment. 

DOE may also rely on a combination of 

these two approaches. For example, the 

efficiency-level approach (based on 

actual products on the market) may be 

extended using the design option 

approach to ‘‘gap fill’’ levels (to bridge 

large gaps between other identified 

efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate 

to the max-tech level (particularly in 

cases where the max-tech level exceeds 

the maximum efficiency level currently 

available on the market). 

In this proposed rulemaking, DOE 

relied on a combination of these two 

methods in developing cost estimates at 

each efficiency level for dehumidifiers, 

structured around the reverse 

engineering approach. For each product 

class, DOE analyzed a few units from 

different manufacturers to ensure the 

analysis was representative of various 

designs on the market. The analysis 

involved reviewing publicly available 

cost and performance information, 

physically disassembling commercially 

available products and modeling 

equipment cost while removing costs 

associated with non-efficiency related 

components or features. From this 

information, DOE estimated the MPCs 

for a range of products currently 

available on the market. DOE then 

considered the incremental steps 

manufacturers may take to reach higher 

efficiency levels. In its modeling, DOE 

started with the baseline MPC and 

added the expected design options at 

each higher efficiency level to estimate 

incremental MPCs. See chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD for additional detail on the 

dehumidifiers analyzed. 

DOE analyzed six efficiency levels 

(‘‘ELs’’) as part of the engineering 

analysis for portable dehumidifiers with 

capacities less than or equal to 50 pints/ 

day: (1) the current DOE standard 

(baseline); (2) an intermediate level 

above the baseline but below the 

ENERGY STAR® level, representing 

units that exist on the market above the 

baseline but are not ENERGY STAR 

units (EL 1); (3) the ENERGY STAR 

efficiency criterion (EL 2); (4) the level 

of the most efficient units available on 

the market (EL 3); (5) an intermediate 

level below the maximum 

technologically feasible (max-tech) 

efficiency that represents the 

implementation of more efficient 

compressors and fan motors on the 

market without any changes to the unit 

chassis (EL 4); and (6) the max-tech 

efficiency (EL 5). 

For portable dehumidifiers with 

capacities of 50.01 pints/day and above, 

the distribution of efficiencies that are 

available on the market and the 

technology options feasible for this 

product class required DOE to analyze 

different efficiency levels, as follows: (1) 

the current DOE standard (baseline); (2) 

an intermediate level above the baseline 

but below the ENERGY STAR level, 

representing units that exist on the 

market above the baseline but are not 

ENERGY STAR units (EL 1); (3) the 

ENERGY STAR efficiency criterion (EL 

2); (4) an intermediate level below max 

tech that represents the implementation 

of more efficient compressors and fan 

motors on the market (EL 3); and (5) the 

max-tech efficiency (EL 4). 

For whole-home dehumidifiers with 

case volumes of 8 cubic feet or below, 

likewise, the distribution of efficiencies 

that are available on the market and the 

technology options feasible for this 

product class required DOE to analyze 

different efficiency levels, as follows: (1) 

the current DOE standard (baseline); (2) 

the ENERGY STAR efficiency criterion 

(EL 1); (3) an intermediate level below 

max tech, representing the level of the 

most efficient units available on the 

market (EL 2); and (4) the max-tech 

efficiency (EL 3). 

For whole-home dehumidifiers with 

case volumes larger than 8 cubic feet, 

likewise, the distribution of efficiencies 

that are available on the market and the 

technology options feasible for this 

product class required DOE to analyze 

different efficiency levels, as follows: (1) 

the current DOE standard (baseline); (2) 

an intermediate level above the baseline 

but below the ENERGY STAR level, 

representing the level of the most 

efficient units available on the market 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76525 

(EL 1); (3) the ENERGY STAR efficiency 

criterion (EL 2); (4) an intermediate 

level below max tech that represents the 

implementation of more efficient 

compressors and fan motors on the 

market and some increase to heat 

exchanger size relative to EL 2 (EL 3); 

and (5) the max-tech efficiency (EL 4). 

a. Baseline Efficiency 

For each product/equipment class, 

DOE generally selects a baseline model 

as a reference point for each class, and 

measures changes resulting from 

potential energy conservation standards 

against the baseline. The baseline model 

in each product/equipment class 

represents the characteristics of a 

product/equipment typical of that class 

(e.g., capacity, physical size). Generally, 

a baseline model is one that just meets 

current energy conservation standards, 

or, if no standards are in place, the 

baseline is typically the most common 

or least efficient unit on the market. 

For representative units for teardowns 

and the NOPR, DOE selected three 

baseline units that fell within two of the 

five dehumidifier product classes 

(Product Class 1 and Product Class 2) as 

reference points for each analyzed 

product class, against which DOE 

measured changes that would result 

from amended energy conservation 

standards to support the engineering, 

LCC, and PBP analyses. Baseline units 

for two of the other three product 

classes (Product Class 3 and Product 

Class 5) were not readily available on 

the market for analysis. Additionally, as 

discussed in chapter 5 of the 

preliminary TSD, for whole-home 

dehumidifiers with case volumes of 8 

cubic feet or less, DOE does not expect 

that efficiencies and overall designs 

have changed since the previous 

standards rulemaking, given that the 

whole-home dehumidifier standards 

adopted in the June 2016 Final Rule 

were the baseline level at the time. For 

this reason, DOE did not select 

additional baseline units in Product 

Class 4 for teardown as part of the 

NOPR analysis. However, DOE found 

that higher-efficiency models could 

provide insight into technologies that 

were likely to be implemented in 

baseline units to improve efficiency. 

Therefore, for product classes where 

baseline units were not available, DOE 

estimated the MPC of baseline units by 

evaluating which design options would 

need to be removed from the higherefficiency unit analyzed in order to 

reduce its efficiency to the baseline 

level. The baseline units in each of the 

analyzed product classes represent the 

basic characteristics of equipment in 

that class. 

MIAQ stated in response to the June 

2022 Preliminary Analysis that the 

current energy conservation standards 

for portable dehumidifier product 

classes are not appropriate or in the best 

interest of the Nation’s energy 

consumption. According to MIAQ, the 

jump in baseline efficiency from 1.60 L/ 

kWh at the 25.01–50.00 pints/day 

capacity up to 2.80 L/kWh for largercapacity units is too drastic and would 

force MPC and manufacturer selling 

price (‘‘MSP’’) to escalate far above that 

of smaller dehumidifiers. According to 

MIAQ, as consumers purchase sufficient 

dehumidifier capacity match the latent 

load of their dwelling, this could be 

through a more expensive, higherefficiency dehumidifier at an efficiency 

of 2.80 L/kWh or through multiple lessexpensive and less-efficient 

dehumidifiers at an efficiency of 1.30 L/ 

kWh. MIAQ stated that as MPC and 

MSP on these two types of units are 

drastically different, anecdotal evidence 

indicates many consumers have two or 

more dehumidifiers in their basement or 

crawlspace consuming twice the power 

of a larger unit. Therefore, MIAQ 

requested that DOE develop a new set 

of baseline efficiency levels for portable 

dehumidifiers that create more parity in 

the MPCs and baseline efficiencies for 

the product sizes. (MIAQ, No. 20 at pp. 

3–4) 

As noted, DOE analyzes the changes 

due to potential energy conservation 

standards against the baseline for each 

product class. DOE determined in the 

June 2016 Final Rule that the current 

standards were technologically feasible 

and economically justified for each of 

the five dehumidifier product classes 

(81 FR 38338, 38385–38388), and 

models exist on the market at or above 

the current standard level in each class. 

Therefore, DOE has evaluated baseline 

efficiency levels for this NOPR analysis 

that correspond to the current energy 

conservation standards for 

dehumidifiers. DOE notes that units 

with capacities larger than 50 pints/day 

have inherent differences in design from 

those with smaller capacities related to 

the different consumer utility they 

provide. The larger dehumidifiers in 

Product Class 3 provide 

dehumidification for large spaces, are 

more robustly constructed, and are more 

efficient due to their greater size and 

capacity. The smaller dehumidifiers are 

intended to dehumidify smaller spaces 

and provide consumers with an 

affordable, lighter-weight, and more 

compact option to dehumidify a 

targeted area. The current energy 

conservation standards on which the 

baseline efficiency levels are based 

reflect that consumers derive utility 

from the greater capacity, efficiency, 

and robust construction of larger 

dehumidifiers and that smaller 

dehumidifiers offer utility in the form of 

their smaller size and lower cost. These 

differences in utility are borne out in the 

design differences observed between 

these classes of dehumidifiers, with 

larger dehumidifiers implementing 

more durable materials and larger heat 

exchangers. These design differences 

lead to the cost differential observed by 

manufacturers and consumers between 

larger and smaller dehumidifiers. DOE 

developed the higher efficiency levels in 

each product class based on the units 

currently on the market, external 

efficiency criteria such as ENERGY 

STAR, and technological feasibility of 

design options to improve dehumidifier 

efficiency. DOE then evaluated the 

economic impacts of potential standards 

at each of these efficiency levels, 

including incremental impacts on MPCs 

and MSPs in each product class, as part 

of the NOPR analysis. DOE is not aware 

of and lacks sufficient consumer usage 

data showing that consumers install 

multiple smaller dehumidifiers in the 

same room instead of purchasing one 

larger, more efficient dehumidifier as 

part of an average period of use, and 

therefore did not model any product 

class switching as a result of evaluated 

potential standards. 

DOE requests comment regarding 

consumer’s dehumidifier usage patterns 

and whether consumers typically 

purchase multiple smaller 

dehumidifiers to meet dehumidification 

requirements as opposed to a single, 

higher capacity dehumidifier. 

b. Higher Efficiency Levels 

As discussed above, DOE modeled 

several efficiency levels above the 

baseline for dehumidifiers in each 

product class, using a combination of 

design options that varied by product 

class (for detailed discussion of the 

design options used to model each 

efficiency level, see chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD). As part of DOE’s analysis, 

the maximum available efficiency level 

is the highest efficiency unit currently 

available on the market. DOE also 

defines a ‘‘max-tech’’ efficiency level to 

represent the maximum possible 

efficiency for a given product. At all of 

these levels, DOE considered 

incremental compressor efficiency 

improvements as a design option. In the 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE 

reviewed compressor manufacturer 

product catalogues to identify the 

maximum technologically feasible R–32 

compressor efficiency. However, based 

on additional research and input from 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76526 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

manufacturer interviews, DOE 

understands that the most efficient 

compressors listed in catalogues may 

not be widely available to all 

dehumidifier manufacturers or available 

at the scale necessary to serve the 

dehumidifier market at the anticipated 

date of compliance of any new 

standards. This is especially true for the 

relatively small manufacturers that 

produce dehumidifiers in Product Class 

4 and Product Class 5, given the 

specialized applications for these 

products and the corresponding lower 

production volumes. To address this 

concern in the NOPR analysis, DOE 

considered incremental compressor 

efficiency increases for each product 

class only up to the highest R–32 singlespeed compressor efficiency observed in 

the teardown sample in that class. This 

change ensures that the higherefficiency compressors considered as 

design options are widely available and 

technologically feasible for all 

dehumidifier manufacturers to 

implement. As discussed in chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD, DOE modeled replacing 

permanent split capacitor (‘‘PSC’’) fan 

motors with more efficient ECMs, 

replacing baseline single-speed 

compressors with the most efficient 

single-speed compressors already 

available on the market, reducing 

standby power using more efficient 

controls, and increasing the cabinet and 

heat exchanger to the largest sizes 

feasible without impacting consumer 

utility to improve efficiency. For all 

product classes, the max-tech level 

identified exceeds any other regulatory 

or voluntary efficiency criteria currently 

in effect. 

DOE received the following comments 

related to the higher efficiency levels 

modeled in the preliminary engineering 

analysis. 

AHAM requested that DOE account 

for additional controls, specifically 

variable-frequency drives that are 

required for ECMs in the improved fan 

and fan motor efficiency technology 

option. According to AHAM, in 

addition to the significant cost increase 

associated with ECMs being a 

significant obstacle to widespread 

adoption in dehumidifiers, additional 

controls would only further increase the 

cost and require additional space within 

the product case, potentially affecting 

the size and weight of the product. 

(AHAM, No. 22 at p. 5) 

DOE is aware that ECMs require 

specialized control boards and 

additional space within dehumidifier 

chassis to locate them and considered 

this issue as part of the engineering 

analysis. DOE found that there is a 

variable-speed dehumidifier on the 

market that implements a variable-speed 

compressor, and this model has the 

same chassis size as another comparable 

dehumidifier from the same 

manufacturer that does not implement 

the variable-speed components and 

functionality. DOE expects that a 

variable-speed dehumidifier would have 

similar control requirements to one that 

implements ECMs. Therefore, DOE 

tentatively finds that the 

implementation of ECMs for fan blowers 

in dehumidifiers does not inherently 

necessitate a change in chassis size. 

According to AHAM and a survey of 

its members, employing the technology 

options that DOE suggested in the 

preliminary TSD to meet the analyzed 

efficiency levels for Product Classes 1, 

2, and 3 would require significant 

increases in both model weight and 

model dimensions. For Product Classes 

1 and 2, AHAM stated that an increase 

of up to 30 percent in model weight and 

up to 59 percent in model dimensions 

is required to meet EL 3, and an increase 

of up to 38 percent in model weight and 

up to 68 percent in model dimensions 

is required to meet EL 4. For Product 

Class 3, AHAM stated that EL 2 would 

require a product redesign and likely an 

increase in both weight and dimension 

by unknown quantities. AHAM also 

stated that increased product size and 

weight associated with implementing 

the technology options specified in the 

preliminary TSD will affect the 

consumer utility of dehumidifiers, 

specifically regarding portability. 

According to AHAM, consumers must 

move or lift dehumidifiers when 

purchased and when used in different 

spaces in their homes. Additionally, 

manufacturers design models to meet a 

51-pound weight threshold for a oneperson lift, a design parameter that not 

only reflects consumer utility but also is 

a requirement under worker safety 

standards, parcel delivery service fee 

structures, and other distribution 

requirements that AHAM stated DOE 

should consider for all product classes. 

AHAM urged DOE to assess impacts on 

product weight associated with 

increased heat exchanger area and 

added tube rows in the improved 

condenser and evaporator performance 

technology option. According to AHAM, 

an increase in weight of the coil section 

could severely impact consumer use in 

existing dehumidifier designs that 

require lifting the coil section in order 

to access the water collection bucket. 

Additionally, AHAM stated that its 

members specifically identified weight 

increases associated with this 

technology option in meeting EL 3 for 

all product classes. AHAM requested 

that DOE assess all potential cost 

increases associated with the technology 

options that increase product size and/ 

or weight and noted its recommendation 

for a standard that does not go beyond 

EL 2 for Product Class 1, a gap-fill 

analysis for Product Class 2, and no 

change in the standard for Product Class 

3 to avoid these negative impacts. 

(AHAM, No. 22 at pp. 2–5) 

In the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE modeled the efficiency 

levels below max-tech mentioned by 

AHAM by implementing more efficient 

compressors without any additional 

design options. In DOE’s assessment, 

these higher-efficiency compressors 

would result in a slight weight increase 

but would require no changes to the 

dehumidifier’s chassis size or any 

substantive change in overall weight. 

Additionally, based on teardowns of 

other space conditioning products, DOE 

does not expect that ECMs are heavier 

than the PSC motors currently used in 

dehumidifiers. However, as AHAM 

suggested, DOE does expect weight 

changes at the max-tech level associated 

with increasing the heat exchanger size. 

DOE accounted for the effect of these 

weight changes and changes to chassis 

size in its analysis of shipping costs, 

and limited the maximum increase in 

heat exchanger size for portable 

dehumidifiers in Product Classes 1 and 

2 to dimensions already observed on the 

market in these product classes to 

ensure the units analyzed retained their 

consumer utility as smaller, portable 

units. Because product weight changes 

due to heat exchanger size increases are 

correlated with product dimensions, 

DOE does not expect that these weight 

increases will result in units that are 

significantly heavier than those 

currently on the market, such that any 

weight increases will not adversely 

affect consumer utility. For Product 

Class 3, DOE’s market analysis suggests 

that most models in Product Class 3, 

even at baseline efficiency, typically 

weigh roughly between 55 and 70 

pounds, already surpassing the 51- 

pound weight limit for a single-person 

lift mentioned by AHAM. Therefore, 

Product Class 3 units already require 

two people to lift and install, a 

requirement that would not be altered 

by minor increases in chassis size and 

thus weight. However, a significantly 

larger chassis size might become more 

unwieldy for two people to lift. 

Accordingly, DOE limited the heat 

exchanger dimension increases 

considered for Product Class 3 to 5 

percent greater than those observed in 

product teardowns in order to preclude 

any adverse effects on consumer utility. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76527 

19 3rd edition, dated November 1, 2019, of 

Underwriters Laboratories (‘‘UL’’) Standard 60335– 

2–40, ‘‘Household and Similar Electrical 

Appliances—Safety—Part 2–40: Particular 

Requirements for Electrical Heat Pumps, Air 

Conditioners and Dehumidifiers’’. 

DOE further notes that portable 

dehumidifiers are typically equipped 

with wheels that allow consumers to 

move them from room to room within 

the home. While DOE is aware of a 

dehumidifier design that requires 

consumers to lift the coil section to 

access the water bucket, the design is 

not efficiency-related and is proprietary, 

and therefore DOE did not consider this 

design in its analysis. In sum, DOE 

expects that the NOPR analysis and any 

subsequent amended energy 

conservation standards would not 

impact the design, weight, or 

dimensions of any dehumidifier 

significantly, as the required chassis 

dimensions are within the scope of 

those previously observed in 

dehumidifiers. For these reasons, in the 

NOPR analysis DOE continued to 

consider design options that increase 

the weight of dehumidifiers, limited to 

the extent discussed by restrictions on 

the allowable chassis size increases. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

limiting needed chassis size increases is 

sufficient to preserve consumer utility at 

the max-tech level. 

AHAM stated that while improved 

compressor efficiency can achieve 

higher overall efficiency, changes in 

compressor technology may require 

product redesigns in the form of 

additional safety components, 

particularly with the transition to R–32 

refrigerant. According to AHAM, these 

additional safety components would 

make it more difficult to implement 

other technology options that will 

require room within the product casing. 

(AHAM, No. 22 at p. 5) 

DOE is aware that the EPA’s 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(‘‘SNAP’’) regulations now allow the use 

of R–32 in new dehumidifiers, provided 

that they comply with the relevant 

industry safety standard 19 to ensure 

new dehumidifiers are designed with 

the flammability of R–32 in mind. See 

88 FR 26382. However, DOE does not 

have information regarding the sorts of 

design changes necessary to comply 

with this standard. See section V.B.2.e 

of this document for discussion of how 

DOE accounts for refrigerant transition 

costs in its cumulative regulatory 

burden analysis. 

ASAP and the Joint Commenters 

encouraged DOE to evaluate at least one 

intermediate efficiency level between 

EL 3 and EL 4 for Product Classes 1 and 

2 to address the large gap in efficiencies 

due to the introduction of multiple 

design options at EL 4. The Joint 

Commenters added that DOE could 

evaluate an intermediate level based on 

the highest-efficiency compressors, or 

one reflecting all design options except 

for increases in heat exchanger size. 

According to the Joint Commenters, 

DOE may refer to the April 2022 NOPR 

for room air conditioners in which the 

most efficient single-speed compressors 

were associated with an increase in 

efficiency of 19 to 25 percent relative to 

baseline units and an incremental cost 

of less than $15. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 19 at pp. 19–20; Joint 

Commenters, No. 21 at p. 2) 

In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 

for Product Classes 1 and 2, DOE 

analyzed two efficiency levels above the 

ENERGY STAR level: the maximum 

available efficiency on the market and 

the max-tech efficiency. For Product 

Class 3 and for whole-home 

dehumidifiers, DOE analyzed the maxtech efficiency level above the ENERGY 

STAR level and no other intermediate 

levels, because there were no units on 

the market above the ENERGY STAR 

efficiency. While conducting the 

analysis for this NOPR, DOE noted the 

potential to add an efficiency level for 

all product classes beyond the 

maximum available efficiency but below 

max tech by using more efficient singlespeed compressors and implementing 

ECM technology. DOE used these design 

options to model a new intermediate 

efficiency level, EL 4, for all product 

classes. The new EL 4 level improves 

the efficiency by 35 to 63 percent 

relative to baseline units with 

incremental costs between $83 and 

$119, depending on product class. See 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional discussion of the new 

efficiency levels and incremental costs. 

2. Cost Analysis 

The cost analysis portion of the 

engineering analysis is conducted using 

one or a combination of cost 

approaches. The selection of cost 

approach depends on a suite of factors, 

including the availability and reliability 

of public information, characteristics of 

the regulated product, and the 

availability and timeliness of 

purchasing the product on the market. 

The cost approaches are summarized as 

follows: 

b Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles a 

commercially available product, 

component by component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials for the product. 

b Catalog teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing a product, 

DOE identifies each component using 

parts diagrams (e.g., available from 

manufacturer websites or appliance 

repair websites) to develop the bill of 

materials for the product. 

b Price surveys: If neither a physical 

nor catalog teardown is feasible (e.g., for 

tightly integrated products such as 

fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible 

to disassemble and for which parts 

diagrams are unavailable) or is costprohibitive and otherwise impractical 

(e.g., for large commercial boilers), DOE 

conducts price surveys using publicly 

available pricing data published on 

major online retailer websites and/or by 

soliciting prices from distributors and 

other commercial channels. 

In the present case, DOE conducted 

the analysis using physical teardowns. 

The resulting bill of materials provides 

the basis for the MPC estimates. 

To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE 

applies a multiplier (the manufacturer 

markup) to the MPC. The resulting 

manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) is 

the price at which the manufacturer 

distributes a unit into commerce. DOE 

developed an average manufacturer 

markup by examining corporate annual 

reports filed by publicly traded 

manufacturers primarily engaged in 

appliance manufacturing and whose 

combined product range includes 

dehumidifiers. See section IV.J.2.d of 

this document or chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD for additional information 

on the manufacturer markup. 

In response to June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, MIAQ stated that although the 

manufacturer markup of 1.45 used in 

the preliminary analysis was 

historically accurate, it now overstates 

the current market situation which is 

decreasing as costs continue to increase 

and are unable to be passed onto the 

consumer. MIAQ also stated it would be 

willing to share information on their 

current markup for dehumidifiers. 

(MIAQ, No. 20 at p. 5) 

For this NOPR analysis, DOE adjusted 

the estimated industry average 

manufacturer markup from the 1.45 

estimate published in the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis. DOE used market 

share weights to adjust the manufacturer 

markup based on confidential feedback 

provided in manufacturer interviews 

and a review of recent corporate annual 

reports by public companies engaged in 

manufacturing dehumidifiers. DOE 

estimates that the industry average 

manufacturer markup is 1.40 for all 

product classes. See section IV.J.2.d of 

this document and chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD for additional information 

on the manufacturer markup. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76528 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

20Because the projected prices of standardscompliant products are typically higher than the 

price of baseline products, using the same markup 

for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 

result in higher per-unit operating profit. While 

such an outcome is possible in the short term, DOE 

maintains that in markets that are reasonably 

competitive, it is unlikely that standards would 

lead to a sustainable increase in profitability in the 

long run. 

21US Census Bureau, Annual Retail Trade 

Survey. 2017. www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ 

arts.html. 

22US Census Bureau, Annual Retail Trade 

Survey. 2017. www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ 

arts.html. 

23US Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census. 

www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economiccensus/year/2017/economic-census-2017/ 

data.html. 

24U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information 

Administration. Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey. 2020. www.eia.gov/consumption/ 

residential/data/2020/. 

25Available at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdoweb/datatools/lcd. 

AHAM stated that implementation of 

technology options that both increase 

product efficiency and product size 

and/or weight runs counter to 

manufacturer efforts to decrease product 

size and maximize shipping container 

space in order to deliver products to 

consumers in a timely manner while 

minimizing added costs due to ongoing 

supply chain and logistics issues. 

AHAM requested that DOE avoid design 

options that require increases in size 

and/or weight for these reasons and 

requested that DOE account for these 

added costs in its analysis. (AHAM, No. 

22 at p. 3) 

In this NOPR, DOE’s analysis includes 

the impact of changes in dimensions on 

overseas container and domestic 

shipping rates. For efficiency levels 

below max-tech, DOE does not find 

increases in shipping costs, because 

chassis size and weight of the units are 

not expected to change from the 

baseline at these efficiency levels. At 

max-tech, there are increases in 

shipping costs due to the expected 

increase in chassis size. Additional 

information about shipping costs is 

available in section IV.F.1 of this 

document and chapter 8 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

3. Cost-Efficiency Results 

The results of the engineering analysis 

are presented as cost-efficiency data for 

each of the efficiency levels for each of 

the product classes. DOE developed 

estimates of MPCs for each unit in the 

teardown sample, and also performed 

additional modeling for each of the 

teardown samples, to develop a 

comprehensive set of MPCs at each 

efficiency level. DOE then consolidated 

the resulting MPCs for each of DOE’s 

teardown units and modeled units using 

a weighted average for product classes 

in which DOE analyzed units from 

multiple manufacturers. DOE’s 

weighting factors were based on a 

market penetration analysis for each of 

the manufacturers within each product 

class. The resulting weighted-average 

incremental MPCs (i.e., the additional 

costs manufacturers would likely incur 

by producing dehumidifiers at each 

efficiency level compared to the 

baseline) are provided in Tables 5.5.12 

and 5.5.13 in chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for 

additional detail on the engineering 

analysis. 

DOE requests comment on the 

incremental MPCs from the NOPR 

engineering analysis. 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups (e.g., retailer 

markups, distributor markups, 

contractor markups) in the distribution 

chain and sales taxes to convert the 

MSP estimates derived in the 

engineering analysis to consumer prices, 

which are then used in the LCC and PBP 

analysis. At each step in the distribution 

channel, companies mark up the price 

of the product to cover business costs 

and profit margin. 

DOE developed baseline and 

incremental markups for each actor in 

the distribution chain. Baseline 

markups are applied to the price of 

products with baseline efficiency, while 

incremental markups are applied to the 

difference in price between baseline and 

higher-efficiency models (the 

incremental cost increase). The 

incremental markup is typically less 

than the baseline markup and is 

designed to maintain similar per-unit 

operating profit before and after new or 

amended standards.20

For portable dehumidifiers with 

capacities less than or equal to 50.0 

pints/day, DOE assumed all sales were 

through the retail channel. DOE 

developed baseline and incremental 

retail markups using data from the 2017 

Annual Retail Trade Survey for the 

‘‘electronics and appliance stores’’ 

sector.21 The whole-home dehumidifier 

distribution channel reflects two 

additional markups to include 

wholesalers and contractors used in the 

purchase of the larger dehumidifiers. 

DOE developed wholesaler and 

contractor markups using U.S. Census 

Bureau data from the 2017 Annual 

Wholesale Trade Report 22 and the 2017 

U.S. Economic Census,23 respectively. 

For portable dehumidifiers with 

capacities greater than 50.00 pints/day, 

DOE assumed 60 percent of shipments 

were through the retail channel, and 40 

percent of shipments were through the 

whole-home dehumidifier distribution 

channel based on feedback from 

manufacturer interviews. 

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides 

details on DOE’s development of 

markups for dehumidifiers. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of dehumidifiers at 

different efficiencies in representative 

U.S. single-family homes and multifamily residences, and to assess the 

energy savings potential of increased 

dehumidifier efficiency. The energy use 

analysis estimates the range of energy 

use of dehumidifiers in the field (i.e., as 

they are actually used by consumers). 

The energy use analysis provides the 

basis for other analyses DOE performed, 

particularly assessments of the energy 

savings and the savings in consumer 

operating costs that could result from 

adoption of amended or new standards. 

DOE used data from the EIA’s 2020 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(‘‘RECS 2020’’) 24 to determine 

dehumidifier ownership and usage 

across the United States. RECS 2020 

represents the largest nationally 

available dataset of installed residential 

appliance stock of dehumidifiers in 

households (either portable or whole 

home) as well as the number of portable 

units in each household. RECS also 

provides dehumidifier usage 

information in the form of broad 

categories of annual usage frequency as 

reported by the households. DOE 

estimated monthly vapor density data 

for each household that reported 

owning a portable dehumidifier by 

using corresponding outdoor 

temperature and humidity information 

for the year 2020 provided by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA).25 DOE used 

this vapor density data in conjunction 

with the annual usage information to 

estimate the respective annual operating 

hours of portable dehumidifiers for each 

consumer sample as applicable. 

DOE determined that portable 

dehumidifiers operated in active 

(dehumidification) mode, fan-only 

mode, and standby mode while wholehome dehumidifiers operated in active 

and standby modes only. To estimate 

the annual dehumidifier energy 

consumption, DOE first calculated the 

number of operating hours in each 

mode. For portable dehumidifiers, DOE 

used available dehumidifier field 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76529 

26Willem, H., T. Burke, C. Dunham, B. Beraki, J. 

Lutz, M. Melody, M. Nagaraju, C. Ni, S. Pratt, S. 

Price, and V. Tavares. Using Field-Metered Data to 

Quantify Annual Energy Use of Residential Portable 

Unit Dehumidifiers. 2013. Report No. LBNL–6469e. 

27Burke, T. A., H. Willem, C. C. Ni, H. Stratton, 

C. Dunham Whitehead, and R. Johnson. WholeHome Dehumidifiers: Field-Monitoring Study. 2014. 

Report No. LBNL–1003950E. 

studies 26 27 that provided a relationship 

between vapor density and daily 

operating hours. DOE estimated that 

portable dehumidifiers operated in 

active mode for an average of 1,337 

hours annually. For whole-home 

dehumidifiers, based on data from the 

field study, DOE estimated that, on 

average, 28 percent of the daily 

operating hours were spent in active or 

dehumidification mode and the 

remaining in standby mode. DOE paired 

these data with estimates of the number 

of months that dehumidifiers may be 

used based on usage behavior as 

reported in RECS 2020. DOE estimated 

that consumers leave the dehumidifier 

to cycle on and off for the entire month 

or months of the dehumidification 

season. 

MIAQ stated that although 

dehumidifiers use the same vapor 

compression refrigeration cycle as air 

conditioners, their operation is much 

different and the latent load or run time 

is affected by many variables. According 

to MIAQ, consumers typically do not 

manually change the mode of operation 

or settings once a dehumidifier is 

installed. (MIAQ, No. 20 at p. 4) 

DOE agrees that there are differences 

in operation between dehumidifiers and 

air conditioners. DOE’s energy use 

analysis is based on dehumidifier field 

studies that capture real world 

dehumidifier operation in a variety of 

different operating conditions. The 

studies used by DOE support MIAQ’s 

assertion that consumers do not 

manually change the mode of operation 

or settings once the dehumidifier is 

installed. 

MIAQ stated that more than 10 

percent of households have more than 

one dehumidifier, which indicates that 

consumers understand they can 

purchase two smaller capacity units 

rather than one large capacity unit. 

(MIAQ, No. 20 at p. 4) 

Using RECS 2020, DOE estimates that 

10.6 percent of portable dehumidifierowning households own multiple units, 

similar to the estimate provided by 

MIAQ. DOE adjusted the consumer 

sample to account for households with 

multiple units using the household 

weights derived by RECS 2020 and the 

reported number of portable 

dehumidifiers in each household. 

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides 

details on DOE’s energy use analysis for 

dehumidifiers. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for dehumidifiers. The effect of new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

on individual consumers usually 

involves a reduction in operating cost 

and an increase in purchase cost. DOE 

used the following two metrics to 

measure consumer impacts: 

b The LCC is the total consumer 

expense of an appliance or product over 

the life of that product, consisting of 

total installed cost (manufacturer selling 

price, distribution chain markups, sales 

tax, and installation costs) plus 

operating costs (expenses for energy use, 

maintenance, and repair). To compute 

the operating costs, DOE discounts 

future operating costs to the time of 

purchase and sums them over the 

lifetime of the product. 

b The PBP is the estimated amount 

of time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a more 

efficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

at higher efficiency levels by the change 

in annual operating cost for the year that 

amended or new standards are assumed 

to take effect. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the change in LCC relative to 

the LCC in the no-new-standards case, 

which reflects the estimated efficiency 

distribution of dehumidifiers in the 

absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. In contrast, the 

PBP for a given efficiency level is 

measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

For each considered efficiency level 

in each product class, DOE calculated 

the LCC and PBP for a nationally 

representative set of U.S. households. 

As stated previously, DOE developed 

household samples from RECS 2020. 

For each sample household, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

the dehumidifiers and the appropriate 

energy price. By developing a 

representative sample of households, 

the analysis captured the variability in 

energy consumption and energy prices 

associated with the use of 

dehumidifiers. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes MPCs, 

manufacturer markups, retailer and 

distributor markups, and sales taxes— 

and installation costs. Inputs to the 

calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy consumption, 

energy prices and price projections, 

repair and maintenance costs, product 

lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE 

created distributions of values for 

product lifetime, discount rates, and 

sales taxes, with probabilities attached 

to each value, to account for their 

uncertainty and variability. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC relies on a Monte 

Carlo simulation to incorporate 

uncertainty and variability into the 

analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations 

randomly sample input values from the 

probability distributions and 

dehumidifier user samples. The model 

calculated the LCC for products at each 

efficiency level for 10,000 households 

per simulation run. The analytical 

results include a distribution of 10,000 

data points showing the range of LCC 

savings for a given efficiency level 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

efficiency distribution. In performing an 

iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation 

for a given consumer, product efficiency 

is chosen based on its probability. If the 

chosen product efficiency is greater than 

or equal to the efficiency of the standard 

level under consideration, the LCC 

calculation reveals that a consumer is 

not impacted by the standard level. By 

accounting for consumers who already 

purchase more efficient products, DOE 

avoids overstating the potential benefits 

from increasing product efficiency. 

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for 

consumers of dehumidifiers as if each 

were to purchase a new product in the 

expected year of required compliance 

with new or amended standards. New 

and amended standards would apply to 

dehumidifiers manufactured 3 years 

after the date on which any new or 

amended standard is published. (42 

U.S.C. 6295 (m)(4)(A)) At this time, DOE 

estimates publication of a final rule in 

2025. Therefore, for purposes of its 

analysis, DOE used 2028 as the first year 

of compliance with any amended 

standards for dehumidifiers. 

Table IV.3 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The 

subsections that follow provide further 

discussion. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76530 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

28Product series IDs: PCU33521033521014 and 

PCU335210335210. More information at 

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 29Appliance Magazine. Appliance Historical 

Statistical Review: 1954–2012. 2014. UBM Canon. 

chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD and its 

appendices. 

TABLE IV.4—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC ANALYSIS * 

Inputs Source/method 

Product Costs ..................................................... Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer, retailer, and contractor markups and sales tax, 

as appropriate. Used historical data to derive a price scaling index to project product costs. 

Applied price trend to electronic controls used on products with variable-speed blower motors. 

Installation Costs ................................................ Baseline installation cost determined with data from RSMeans. Assumed no change with efficiency level. 

Annual Energy Use ............................................. The total annual energy use derived from power demand of each mode multiplied by the hours 

per year in that mode. Average number of hours based on field data. 

Variability: Based on RECS 2020. 

Energy Prices ..................................................... Electricity: Based on Edison Electric Institute data for 2022. 

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for each census division. 

Energy Price Trends ........................................... Based on AEO2023 electricity price projections from 2022–2050; constant value based on average of price for 2046–2050 thereafter. 

Repair and Maintenance Costs .......................... Assumed no change with efficiency level. 

Product Lifetime .................................................. Weibull probability distribution based on averages provided from manufacturer interviews: 10 

years for portable dehumidifiers and 12 years for whole-home dehumidifiers. 

Discount Rates ................................................... Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances or that might be affected indirectly. Primary data source 

was the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. 

Compliance Date ................................................ 2028. 

* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the following sections and in chapter 8 

of the NOPR TSD. 

1. Product Cost 

To calculate consumer product costs, 

DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in 

the engineering analysis by the markups 

described previously (along with sales 

taxes). DOE used different markups for 

baseline products and higher-efficiency 

products, because DOE applies an 

incremental markup to the increase in 

MSP associated with higher-efficiency 

products. 

Economic literature and historical 

data suggest that the real costs of many 

products may trend downward over 

time according to ‘‘learning’’ or 

‘‘experience’’ curves. Experience curve 

analysis implicitly includes factors such 

as efficiencies in labor, capital 

investment, automation, materials 

prices, distribution, and economies of 

scale at an industry-wide level. DOE 

developed two types of experience 

curves to project the future 

dehumidifier prices. One is an overall 

price trend applied to the cost of 

dehumidifier units excluding the cost of 

electronic controls used for variablespeed blower fans, and the other is a 

separate learning rate associated with 

the electronic controls used in units 

with variable-speed blower fans. To 

derive the first type of experience curve 

for portable dehumidifiers, DOE used 

historical Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’) 

data between 1983 and 2014 for ‘‘small 

electric household appliances, except 

fans’’ and data from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (‘‘BLS’’) 28 between 2014 and 

2022 for ‘‘small electric household 

appliances manufacturing’’ to construct 

a combined price index that is most 

representative of portable 

dehumidifiers. Inflation-adjusted price 

indices were calculated by dividing the 

PPI series by the implicit gross domestic 

product (‘‘GDP’’) price deflator for the 

same years. DOE assembled a time 

series of annual shipments of portable 

dehumidifiers from AHAM and 

Appliance Magazine.29 For efficiency 

levels that include variable-speed 

blowers, DOE applied a different price 

trend to the controls portion of the 

variable-speed blowers that contributes 

to the price increments moving from 

single-speed blower to variable-speed 

blower. DOE used PPI data between 

1967 and 2022 on ‘‘semiconductors and 

related device manufacturing’’ to 

estimate the historic price trend of 

electronic components in the controls. 

The regression performed as an 

exponential trend line fit results in an 

R-square of 0.99, with an annual price 

decline rate of 6.3 percent. DOE applied 

the same learning parameters for wholehome dehumidifiers. See chapter 8 of 

the NOPR TSD for further details on this 

topic. 

DOE included the cost to 

internationally ship and domestically 

transport dehumidifier units to the 

United States. DOE calculated shipping 

costs for the baseline and for higher 

efficiency levels that have larger 

product dimensions that increase 

shipping costs. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

product. In the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE assumed that there were 

no installation costs for portable 

dehumidifiers given that consumers 

were directed by manufacturer 

instructions to simply plug them in to 

a wall outlet for operation. For wholehome dehumidifiers, DOE used data 

from RSMeans’ 2022 Residential Cost 

Data to estimate installation costs for 

baseline and more efficient units. 

For this NOPR, DOE assumed that 

whole-home dehumidifier installation 

costs do not increase with efficiency 

based on feedback from manufacturer 

interviews. DOE used the baseline 

installation cost for all efficiency levels 

for whole-home dehumidifiers. DOE 

maintained the assumption of no 

installation costs for portable 

dehumidifiers. 

DOE seeks available data on 

installation costs for baseline and more 

efficient units. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each sampled household, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

dehumidifiers at different efficiency 

levels using the approach described 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76531 

30Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential 

Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and 

Estimation Methods. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL– 

2001169. ees.lbl.gov/publications/residentialelectricity-prices-review. 

31EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2023. Washington, 

DC. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ 

(accessed August 21, 2023). 

32The implicit discount rate is inferred from a 

consumer purchase decision between two otherwise 

identical goods with different first cost and 

operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the 

increment of first cost to the difference in net 

present value of lifetime operating cost, 

incorporating the influence of several factors: 

transaction costs; risk premiums and response to 

uncertainty; time preferences; and interest rates at 

which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. The 

implicit discount rate is not appropriate for the LCC 

analysis because it reflects a range of factors that 

influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than 

the opportunity cost of the funds that are used in 

purchases. 

previously in section IV.E of this 

document. 

4. Energy Prices 

Because marginal electricity price 

more accurately captures the 

incremental savings associated with a 

change in energy use from higher 

efficiency, it provides a better 

representation of incremental change in 

consumer costs than average electricity 

prices. Therefore, DOE applied average 

electricity prices for the energy use of 

the product purchased in the no-newstandards case, and marginal electricity 

prices for the incremental change in 

energy use associated with the other 

efficiency levels considered. 

DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 

using data from Edison Electric Institute 

(‘‘EEI’’) Typical Bills and Average Rates 

reports. Based upon comprehensive, 

industry-wide surveys, this semi-annual 

report presents typical monthly electric 

bills and average kilowatt-hour costs to 

the customer as charged by investorowned utilities. For the residential 

sector, DOE calculated electricity prices 

using the methodology described in 

Coughlin and Beraki (2018).30 DOE used 

the EEI data to define a marginal price 

as the ratio of the change in the bill to 

the change in energy consumption. 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the 2022 energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

average price changes for each of the 

nine census divisions from the 

Reference case in AEO2023, which has 

an end year of 2050.31 To estimate 

energy prices after 2050, DOE assumed 

a constant 2050 value for all years. 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing product 

components that have failed in an 

appliance; maintenance costs are 

associated with maintaining the 

operation of the product. Typically, 

small incremental increases in product 

efficiency produce no, or only minor, 

changes in repair and maintenance costs 

compared to baseline efficiency 

products. 

In the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE assumed that 

maintenance and repair costs would not 

vary by efficiency level and did not 

include them in the LCC analysis. 

MIAQ stated that, in general, more 

efficient dehumidifiers are typically 

made with more complex components 

which potentially increases the failure 

probability and the skill level of the 

technician required to conduct any 

repairs. (MIAQ, No. 20 at p. 5) 

Feedback from manufacturer 

interviews (see section IV.J.3 of this 

document) indicated that portable 

dehumidifiers do not require 

maintenance costs that would change 

with efficiency and whole-home 

dehumidifier consumers are more likely 

to replace rather than repair their units. 

Based on this feedback, DOE assumed 

that portable dehumidifier consumers 

are also more likely to replace a unit 

rather than repair it, similar to wholehome units. For this NOPR analysis, 

DOE did not include maintenance or 

repair costs for portable or whole-home 

dehumidifiers. DOE assumes that filter 

change frequency and cost would not 

change with efficiency for each product 

class. DOE notes that higher failure rates 

for units with more complex technology 

could potentially indicate a different 

lifetime for those units. However, DOE 

is unaware of any data indicating 

differences in failure rates based on the 

components used in more efficient 

dehumidifiers. 

DOE seeks comment on the 

assumption that dehumidifier 

consumers are most likely to replace a 

broken unit rather than repair it. DOE 

also seeks available data on the filter 

change and repair frequency and costs. 

6. Product Lifetime 

In the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE assumed a lifetime 

distribution with an average age of 11 

years for portable dehumidifiers, based 

on the June 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 

38338, 38359. In the absence of data 

specific to whole-home dehumidifiers, 

DOE assumed that whole-home 

dehumidifiers would have a lifetime 

distribution similar to residential 

packaged central air conditioners that 

operate in humid climates. For wholehome dehumidifiers, DOE used the 

lifetime distribution with an average 

lifetime of 18 years from the Residential 

Central Air and Heat Pumps Direct Final 

Rule, published on January 6, 2017. 82 

FR 1786. 

MIAQ stated that since dehumidifiers 

operate under different conditions than 

air conditioning equipment, 

dehumidifiers may have a shorter 

average lifetime due to increased freeze/ 

thaw cycling, corrosion from increased 

water saturation time, and component 

failure from extreme intake air 

temperatures. MIAQ suggested a shorter 

8- to 12-year lifetime as more applicable 

for dehumidifiers due to these different 

conditions. (MIAQ, No. 20 at p. 2) 

For this NOPR analysis, DOE has 

included the estimates from MIAQ and 

other feedback from manufacturers in its 

lifetime distributions. For portable 

dehumidifiers, DOE incorporated 

additional average lifetime estimates 

from manufacturers indicating an 

average lifetime of 10 years. A previous 

estimate of an average lifetime of 12 

years from the Northeast Energy Star 

Lighting and Appliance is no longer 

available online and thus not included 

in the lifetime estimates. For wholehome units, as described by MIAQ, 

dehumidifiers are subject to different 

operating conditions relative to other air 

conditioning equipment that could lead 

to a different average lifetime. For 

whole-home dehumidifiers, DOE used 

an average value of 12 years wholehome dehumidifiers based on MIAQ’s 

comments. 

7. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates appropriate to 

households to estimate the present 

value of future operating cost savings. 

DOE estimated a distribution of 

discount rates for dehumidifiers based 

on the opportunity cost of consumer 

funds. 

DOE applies weighted average 

discount rates calculated from consumer 

debt and asset data, rather than marginal 

or implicit discount rates.32 The LCC 

analysis estimates net present value 

over the lifetime of the product, so the 

appropriate discount rate will reflect the 

general opportunity cost of household 

funds, taking this time scale into 

account. Given the long time horizon 

modeled in the LCC analysis, the 

application of a marginal interest rate 

associated with an initial source of 

funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the 

method of purchase, consumers are 

expected to continue to rebalance their 

debt and asset holdings over the LCC 

analysis period, based on the 

restrictions consumers face in their debt 

payment requirements and the relative 

size of the interest rates available on 

debts and assets. DOE estimates the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76532 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

33U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System. Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 

2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. 

Available at www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/ 

scf/scfindex.htm (last accessed February 22, 2023). 

34Available at https://www.energystar.gov/sites/ 

default/files/asset/document/ 

Dehumidifiers%20ENERGY

%20STAR%20Most%20Efficient

%202024%20Final%20Criteria.pdf. 

35 Ganeshalingam, M., Ni, C., and Yang, H–C. 

2021. A Retrospective Analysis of the 2011 Direct 

Final Rule for Room Air Conditioners. Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL-2001413. 

aggregate impact of this rebalancing 

using the historical distribution of debts 

and assets. 

To establish residential discount rates 

for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all 

relevant household debt or asset classes 

in order to approximate a consumer’s 

opportunity cost of funds related to 

appliance energy cost savings. It 

estimated the average percentage shares 

of the various types of debt and equity 

by household income group using data 

from the Federal Reserve Board’s 

triennial Survey of Consumer 

Finances 33 (‘‘SCF’’) starting in 1995 and 

ending in 2019. Using the SCF and other 

sources, DOE developed a distribution 

of rates for each type of debt and asset 

by income group to represent the rates 

that may apply in the year in which 

amended standards would take effect. 

DOE assigned each sample household a 

specific discount rate drawn from one of 

the distributions. The average rate 

across all types of household debt and 

equity and income groups, weighted by 

the shares of each type, is 4.3 percent. 

See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for 

further details on the development of 

consumer discount rates. 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the 

No-New-Standards Case 

To accurately estimate the share of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

potential energy conservation standard 

at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s 

LCC analysis considered the projected 

distribution (market shares) of product 

efficiencies under the no-new-standards 

case (i.e., the case without amended or 

new energy conservation standards). 

In the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE used shipmentsweighted efficiency data submitted by 

AHAM to estimate the efficiency 

distribution for portable dehumidifiers. 

DOE used these data in conjunction 

with the model counts from the 

Compliance Certification Database 

(‘‘CCD’’) database to assign market share 

to efficiency levels defined in the June 

2022 Preliminary Analysis. DOE 

assumed an annual efficiency 

improvement of 0.25 percent to develop 

the efficiency distribution in the first 

year of compliance. 

AHAM stated that model counts 

based on the CCD database are not an 

accurate proxy to estimate the efficiency 

distribution for portable dehumidifiers. 

AHAM suggested DOE use shipmentweighted data gathered from AHAM 

members. AHAM also noted that data 

from AHAM members indicated that 

100 percent of shipments for Product 

Class 3 are at the baseline efficiency 

level and the one model in CCD meeting 

EL 2 is a whole-home dehumidifier. 

(AHAM, No. 22 at p. 7) 

DOE thanks AHAM for providing 

shipments-weighted distributions and 

has included the data for establishing 

the efficiency distribution of portable 

dehumidifiers in 2022. DOE notes in 

response to AHAM’s note on current 

market efficiency distribution that the 

no-new-standards case efficiency 

distribution used in the LCC is the 

projected efficiency distribution in the 

compliance year (2028) and includes the 

impact of market efficiency trends. For 

dehumidifiers, the efficiency trend 

employed by DOE is based on historical 

market trends towards more efficient 

products in response to ENERGY STAR 

criterion updates. The current ENERGY 

STAR specification 5.0 criterion were 

adopted in 2019. As indicated by 

ENERGY STAR shipments data, 94 

percent of the dehumidifier market met 

ENERGY STAR levels in 2021, 

compared to 88 percent in 2020 and 80 

percent in 2019. On October 10, 2023, 

EPA released the final recognition 

criteria for ENERGY STAR Most 

Efficient 2024, which meet or exceed 

the proposed standards in all product 

classes.34 The expected publication of 

ENERGY STAR specification 6.0 for 

dehumidifiers in 2024 will likely 

continue to shift the dehumidifier 

market toward more efficient products 

in the absence of a standard. To account 

for this observed historical trend 

towards a higher average market 

efficiency in the absence of a new 

standard, DOE included an annual 

improvement of 0.25 percent in the 

average shipment-weighted IEF, based 

on trends observed for room air 

conditioners 35 and also used in the June 

2016 Final Rule for dehumidifiers. For 

whole-home dehumidifiers, in the 

absence of shipments-weighted data, 

DOE has maintained the approach of 

using model counts from the CCD 

database for the estimation of efficiency 

distributions and included an annual 

improvement of 0.25 percent in average 

shipment-weighted IEF for the no-newstandards case. 

DOE seeks data and comment on its 

efficiency distribution estimate and the 

assumption of an annual efficiency 

improvement of 0.25 percent and the 

expected market respond to updated 

ENERGY STAR 6.0 specifications. 

The estimated market shares for the 

no-new-standards case for 

dehumidifiers in 2028 are shown in 

Tables IV.4 and IV.5. See chapter 8 of 

the NOPR TSD for further information 

on the derivation of the efficiency 

distributions. 

TABLE IV.5—MARKET SHARE OF EACH EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR PORTABLE DEHUMIDIFIERS FOR THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS

CASE IN 2028 

Product class ≤25.00 pints/day 25.01–50.00 pints/day ≥50.01 pints/day 

Product class market share 19.5% 77.9% 1.1% 

EL 

Integrated 

energy factor 

(L/kWh) 

Market share 

(%) 

Integrated 

energy factor 

(L/kWh) 

Market share 

(%) 

Integrated 

energy factor 

(L/kWh) 

Market share 

(%) 

0 ............................................................... 1.30 0 1.60 0 2.80 86 

1 ............................................................... 1.40 25 1.70 0 3.10 14 

2 ............................................................... 1.57 66 1.80 87 3.30 0 

3 ............................................................... 1.70 9 2.01 13 3.51 0 

4 ............................................................... 1.94 0 2.07 0 3.67 0 

5 ............................................................... 2.32 0 2.38 0 ........................ ........................


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76533 

36 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as 

a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales 

are lacking. In general, one would expect a close 

correspondence between shipments and sales. 

37Fujita, K. (2015) Estimating Price Elasticity 

using Market-Level Appliance Data. Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL–188289. 

TABLE IV.6—MARKET SHARE OF EACH EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR WHOLE-HOME DEHUMIDIFIERS FOR THE NO-NEWSTANDARDS CASE IN 2028 

Product class ≤8.0 cu ft case volume >8.0 cu ft case volume 

Product class market share 1.2% 0.3% 

EL 

Integrated 

energy factor 

(L/kWh) 

Market share 

(%) 

Integrated 

energy factor 

(L/kWh) 

Market share 

(%) 

0 ....................................................................................................................... 1.77 8 2.41 54 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 2.09 14 2.70 46 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 2.22 74 3.30 0 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 2.39 4 3.81 0 

4 ....................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 4.17 0 

The LCC Monte Carlo simulations 

draw from the efficiency distributions 

and randomly assign an efficiency to the 

dehumidifiers purchased by each 

sample household in the no-newstandards case. The resulting percent 

shares within the sample match the 

market shares in the efficiency 

distributions. 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time (expressed in years) it takes the 

consumer to recover the additional 

installed cost of more efficient products, 

compared to baseline products, through 

energy cost savings. Payback periods 

that exceed the life of the product mean 

that the increased total installed cost is 

not recovered in reduced operating 

expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation for 

each efficiency level are the change in 

total installed cost of the product and 

the change in the first-year annual 

operating expenditures relative to the 

baseline. DOE refers to this as a ‘‘simple 

PBP’’ because it does not consider 

changes over time in operating cost 

savings. The PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis when 

deriving first-year operating costs. 

As noted previously, EPCA 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the first 

year’s energy savings resulting from the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered 

efficiency level, DOE determined the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

by calculating the energy savings in 

accordance with the applicable DOE test 

procedure, and multiplying those 

savings by the average energy price 

projection for the year in which 

compliance with the amended standards 

would be required. 

G. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of annual 

product shipments to calculate the 

national impacts of potential amended 

or new energy conservation standards 

on energy use, NPV, and future 

manufacturer cash flows.36 The 

shipments model takes an accounting 

approach, tracking market shares of 

each product class and the vintage of 

units in the stock. Stock accounting uses 

product shipments as inputs to estimate 

the age distribution of in-service 

product stocks for all years. The age 

distribution of in-service product stocks 

is a key input to calculations of both the 

NES and NPV, because operating costs 

for any year depend on the age 

distribution of the stock. 

DOE’s stock accounting model is 

calibrated based on historical shipments 

for portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers. In the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, DOE used 

historical shipments provided by 

AHAM for portable dehumidifiers and 

assumed that whole-home 

dehumidifiers accounted for 1 percent 

of total dehumidifier shipments. In this 

NOPR analysis, DOE included 2022 

shipments estimates for whole-home 

dehumidifiers based on feedback from 

manufacturers indicating whole-home 

dehumidifiers shipments account for 1.6 

percent of the total dehumidifier 

market. 

DOE’s shipments model for 

dehumidifiers considers shipments to 

replace existing units and to first-time 

owners. To determine replacement 

shipments, DOE used survival 

probability distributions based on 

average lifetime estimates of 10 years for 

portable dehumidifiers and 12 years for 

whole-home dehumidifiers provided by 

manufacturers. To estimate shipments 

to first-time owners, DOE used 

projections of AEO2023 housing stock 

coupled with the historical shipments 

data. DOE’s shipments projections 

include shipments reductions due to 

consumers that do not replace a failed 

unit. 

DOE considers the impacts on 

shipments from changes in product 

purchase price associated with higher 

energy efficiency levels using a price 

elasticity. As in the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, DOE employs a 

price elasticity of ¥0.45 in its 

shipments model. These values are 

based on analysis of aggregated data for 

five residential appliances.37 The 

market impact is defined as the 

difference between the product of price 

elasticity of demand and the change in 

price due to a standard level. 

When comparing the first cost of the 

efficiency level selected for PC1 and 

PC2 at each TSL, DOE considers that the 

difference of installed cost in standards 

case is not significant enough to warrant 

a product switching scenario that would 

result in a different market share 

distribution from the no-new-standards 

case. Given the small overall market 

share of PC3, DOE did not include a 

product switching scenario in the 

analysis. DOE assumed that consumers 

are unlikely to purchase multiple lower 

capacity units in place of a larger 

capacity unit as a result of a standard. 

DOE seeks comment on the 

assumption that dehumidifier 

consumers’ purchase decision are 

unlikely to change as a result of a 

standard. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the national energy 

savings (‘‘NES’’) and the NPV from a 

national perspective of total consumer 

costs and savings that would be 

expected to result from new or amended 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76534 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

38The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states 

and U.S. territories. 

standards at specific efficiency levels.38

(‘‘Consumer’’ in this context refers to 

consumers of the product being 

regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and 

NPV for the potential standard levels 

considered based on projections of 

annual product shipments, along with 

the annual energy consumption and 

total installed cost data from the energy 

use and LCC analyses. For the present 

analysis, DOE projected the energy 

savings, operating cost savings, product 

costs, and NPV of consumer benefits 

over the lifetime of dehumidifiers sold 

from 2028 through 2057. 

DOE evaluates the impacts of new or 

amended standards by comparing a case 

without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards 

case characterizes energy use and 

consumer costs for each product class in 

the absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. For this 

projection, DOE considers historical 

trends in efficiency and various forces 

that are likely to affect the mix of 

efficiencies over time. DOE compares 

the no-new-standards case with 

projections characterizing the market for 

each product class if DOE adopted new 

or amended standards at specific energy 

efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or 

standards cases) for that class. For the 

standards cases, DOE considers how a 

given standard would likely affect the 

market shares of products with 

efficiencies greater than the standard. 

DOE uses a spreadsheet model to 

calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings 

from each TSL. Interested parties can 

review DOE’s analyses by changing 

various input quantities within the 

spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet 

model uses typical values (as opposed 

to probability distributions) as inputs. 

Table IV.6 summarizes the inputs and 

methods DOE used for the NIA analysis 

for the NOPR. Discussion of these 

inputs and methods follows the table. 

See chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD for 

further details. 

TABLE IV.7—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs Method 

Shipments ................................................................................................. Annual shipments from shipments model. 

Compliance Date of Standard .................................................................. 2028. 

Efficiency Trends ...................................................................................... No-new-standards case: 0.25 percent annual increase in efficiency. 

Standards cases: Roll-up in compliance year to meet potential efficiency level. 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ...................................................... Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy use at each 

TSL. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit ..................................................................... Annual weighted-average values are a function of cost at each TSL. 

Incorporates projection of future product prices based on historical 

data. 

Annual Energy Cost per Unit ................................................................... Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy 

consumption per unit and energy prices. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit .................................................... Annual values do not change with efficiency level. 

Energy Price Trends ................................................................................. AEO2023 projections to 2050 and constant 2050 value thereafter. 

Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC Conversion .......................................... A time-series conversion factor based on AEO2023. 

Discount Rate ........................................................................................... 3 percent and 7 percent. 

Present Year ............................................................................................. 2023. 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency projected for 

the no-new-standards case and each of 

the standards cases. DOE developed an 

energy efficiency distribution for the nonew-standards case (which yields a 

shipment-weighted average efficiency) 

for each of the considered product 

classes for the year of anticipated 

compliance with an amended or new 

standard. As described in section IV.F.8 

of this document, the efficiency trend 

used in the no-new-standards case is 

based on historical market trends 

towards more efficient product in 

response to ENERGY STAR 

specifications. To account for the 

historical movement towards more 

efficient products in the market in the 

absence of a standard, DOE included an 

annual improvement of 0.25 percent in 

the average shipment-weighted IEF in 

each year of the analysis period 

shipments projection in the no-newstandards case. The approach is further 

described in chapter 10 of the NOPR 

TSD 

For the standards cases, DOE used a 

‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the 

shipment-weighted efficiency for the 

year that standards are assumed to 

become effective (2028). In this 

scenario, the market shares of products 

in the no-new-standards case that do not 

meet the standard under consideration 

would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new 

standard level, and the market share of 

products above the standard would 

remain unchanged. 

2. National Energy Savings 

The national energy savings analysis 

involves a comparison of national 

energy consumption of the considered 

products between each TSL and the case 

with no new or amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE calculated 

the national energy consumption by 

multiplying the number of units (stock) 

of each product (by vintage or age) by 

the unit energy consumption (also by 

vintage). DOE calculated annual NES 

based on the difference in national 

energy consumption for the no-new 

standards case and for each higher 

efficiency standard case. DOE estimated 

energy consumption and savings based 

on site energy and converted the 

electricity consumption and savings to 

primary energy (i.e., the energy 

consumed by power plants to generate 

site electricity) using annual conversion 

factors derived from AEO 2023. 

Cumulative energy savings are the sum 

of the NES for each year over the 

timeframe of the analysis. 

Use of higher-efficiency products is 

sometimes associated with a direct 

rebound effect, which refers to an 

increase in utilization of the product 

due to the increase in efficiency. DOE 

did not find any data on the rebound 

effect specific to dehumidifiers and 

assumed no rebound in the NOPR 

analysis. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76535 

39For more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2018, DOE/EIA–0581(2018), April 2019. Available 

at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/ 

overview/pdf/0581(2018).pdf (last accessed 

February 22, 2023). 

40United States Office of Management and 

Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. 

September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at https:// 

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

drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. 

In 2011, in response to the 

recommendations of a committee on 

‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Measurement Approaches to Energy 

Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the 

National Academy of Sciences, DOE 

announced its intention to use FFC 

measures of energy use and greenhouse 

gas and other emissions in the national 

impact analyses and emissions analyses 

included in future energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 

(Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 

approaches discussed in the August 18, 

2011, notice, DOE published a statement 

of amended policy in which DOE 

explained its determination that EIA’s 

National Energy Modeling System 

(‘‘NEMS’’) is the most appropriate tool 

for its FFC analysis and its intention to 

use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 

(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public 

domain, multi-sector, partial 

equilibrium model of the U.S. energy 

sector 39 that EIA uses to prepare its 

Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors 

incorporate losses in production and 

delivery in the case of natural gas 

(including fugitive emissions) and 

additional energy used to produce and 

deliver the various fuels used by power 

plants. The approach used for deriving 

FFC measures of energy use and 

emissions is described in appendix 10B 

of the NOPR TSD. 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers are (1) total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

operating costs (energy costs and repair 

and maintenance costs), and (3) a 

discount factor to calculate the present 

value of costs and savings. DOE 

calculates net savings each year as the 

difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case 

in terms of total savings in operating 

costs versus total increases in installed 

costs. DOE calculates operating cost 

savings over the lifetime of each product 

shipped during the projection period. 

As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this 

document, DOE developed dehumidifier 

price trends based on historical PPI 

data. DOE applied the same trends to 

project prices for each product class at 

each considered efficiency level. By 

2057, which is the end date of the 

projection period, the average 

dehumidifier price is projected to drop 

25 percent relative to 2028. DOE’s 

projection of product prices is described 

in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. 

To evaluate the effect of uncertainty 

regarding the price trend estimates, DOE 

investigated the impact of different 

product price projections on the 

consumer NPV for the considered TSLs 

for dehumidifiers. In addition to the 

default price trend, DOE considered two 

product price sensitivity cases: (1) a 

high price decline case and (2) a low 

price decline case. In the high price 

decline case, DOE used a faster price 

decline for the non-controls portion of 

the price derived from the same 

combined price index PPI data for 

dehumidifiers between 2005 and 2022. 

In the low price decline case, DOE used 

the same combined price index PPI data 

for dehumidifiers between 1983 and 

1998. For both high and low price 

decline cases, DOE used the default 

price decline for variable-speed blower 

controls. The derivation of these price 

trends and the results of these 

sensitivity cases are described in 

appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. 

The energy cost savings are calculated 

using the estimated energy savings in 

each year and the projected price of the 

appropriate form of energy. To estimate 

energy prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied the average regional energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

national-average residential energy price 

changes in the Reference case from 

AEO2023, which has an end year of 

2050. To estimate price trends after 

2050, the 2050 value was used for all 

years. As part of the NIA, DOE also 

analyzed scenarios that used inputs 

from variants of the AEO2023 Reference 

case that have lower and higher 

economic growth. Those cases have 

lower and higher energy price trends 

compared to the Reference case. NIA 

results based on these cases are 

presented in appendix 10C of the NOPR 

TSD. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. For this NOPR, DOE 

estimated the NPV of consumer benefits 

using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 

real discount rate. DOE uses these 

discount rates in accordance with 

guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to 

Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis.40 The discount rates 

for the determination of NPV are in 

contrast to the discount rates used in the 

LCC analysis, which are designed to 

reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7- 

percent real value is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy. The 

3-percent real value represents the 

‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value. 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards on consumers, DOE evaluates 

the impact on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a new or 

amended national standard. The 

purpose of a subgroup analysis is to 

determine the extent of any such 

disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates 

impacts on particular subgroups of 

consumers by analyzing the LCC 

impacts and PBP for those particular 

consumers from alternative standard 

levels. For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the 

impacts of the considered standard 

levels on two subgroups: (1) low-income 

households and (2) senior-only 

households. The analysis used subsets 

of the RECS 2020 sample composed of 

households that meet the criteria for the 

two subgroups. DOE used the LCC and 

PBP spreadsheet model to estimate the 

impacts of the considered efficiency 

levels on these subgroups. Chapter 11 in 

the NOPR TSD describes the consumer 

subgroup analysis. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the financial impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of dehumidifiers and to 

estimate the potential impacts of such 

standards on employment and 

manufacturing capacity. The MIA has 

both quantitative and qualitative aspects 

and includes analyses of projected 

industry cash flows, the INPV, 

investments in research and 

development (R&D) and manufacturing 

capital, and domestic manufacturing 

employment. Additionally, the MIA 

seeks to determine how amended energy 

conservation standards might affect 

manufacturing employment, capacity, 

and competition, as well as how 

standards contribute to overall 

regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA 

serves to identify any disproportionate 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups, 

including small business manufacturers. 

The quantitative part of the MIA 

primarily relies on the GRIM, an 

industry cash flow model with inputs 

specific to this proposed rulemaking. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76536 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

41U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of 

Manufactures. ‘‘Summary Statistics for Industry 

Groups and Industries in the U.S (2021).’’ Available 

at: www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/econ/ 

asm/2018-2021-asm.html (last accessed March 3, 

2023). 

42The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers login is available 

at: app.dnbhoovers.com (last accessed March 3, 

2023). 

The key GRIM inputs include data on 

the industry cost structure, unit 

production costs, product shipments, 

manufacturer markups, and investments 

in R&D and manufacturing capital 

required to produce compliant products. 

The key GRIM outputs are the INPV, 

which is the sum of industry annual 

cash flows over the analysis period, 

discounted using the industry-weighted 

average cost of capital, and the impact 

to domestic manufacturing employment. 

The model uses standard accounting 

principles to estimate the impacts of 

more-stringent energy conservation 

standards on a given industry by 

comparing changes in INPV and 

domestic manufacturing employment 

between a no-new-standards case and 

the various standards cases (i.e., TSLs). 

To capture the uncertainty relating to 

manufacturer pricing strategies 

following amended standards, the GRIM 

estimates a range of possible impacts 

under different manufacturer markup 

scenarios. 

The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses manufacturer characteristics 

and market trends. Specifically, the MIA 

considers such factors as a potential 

standard’s impact on manufacturing 

capacity, competition within the 

industry, the cumulative impact of other 

DOE and non-DOE regulations, and 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups. 

The complete MIA is outlined in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE conducted the MIA for this 

rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 

of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of 

the dehumidifier manufacturing 

industry based on the market and 

technology assessment, preliminary 

manufacturer interviews, and publicly 

available information. This included a 

top-down analysis of dehumidifier 

manufacturers that DOE used to derive 

preliminary financial inputs for the 

GRIM (e.g., revenues; materials, labor, 

overhead, and depreciation expenses; 

selling, general, and administrative 

expenses (SG&A); and R&D expenses). 

DOE also used public sources of 

information to further calibrate its 

initial characterization of the 

dehumidifier manufacturing industry, 

including corporate annual reports, the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of 

Manufactures (ASM),41 and reports from 

Dun & Bradstreet.42

In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a framework industry cash-flow analysis 

to quantify the potential impacts of 

amended energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM uses several 

factors to determine a series of annual 

cash flows starting with the 

announcement of the standard and 

extending over a 30-year period 

following the compliance date of the 

standard. These factors include annual 

expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A 

and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital 

expenditures. In general, energy 

conservation standards can affect 

manufacturer cash flow in three distinct 

ways: (1) creating a need for increased 

investment, (2) raising production costs 

per unit, and (3) altering revenue due to 

higher per-unit prices and changes in 

sales volumes. 

In addition, during Phase 2, DOE 

developed interview guides to distribute 

to manufacturers of dehumidifiers in 

order to develop other key GRIM inputs, 

including product and capital 

conversion costs, and to gather 

additional information on the 

anticipated effects of energy 

conservation standards on revenues, 

direct employment, capital assets, 

industry competitiveness, and subgroup 

impacts. 

In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE 

conducted structured, detailed 

interviews with representative 

manufacturers. During these interviews, 

DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics to validate assumptions 

used in the GRIM and to identify key 

issues or concerns. See section IV.J.3 of 

this document for a description of the 

key issues raised by manufacturers 

during the interviews. As part of Phase 

3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of 

manufacturers that may be 

disproportionately impacted by 

amended standards or that may not be 

accurately represented by the average 

cost assumptions used to develop the 

industry cash flow analysis. Such 

manufacturer subgroups may include 

small business manufacturers, lowvolume manufacturers, niche players, 

and/or manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure that largely differs from the 

industry average. DOE identified one 

subgroup for a separate impact analysis: 

small business manufacturers. The 

small business subgroup is discussed in 

section VI.B of this document, ‘‘Review 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ 

and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flow due to amended 

standards that result in a higher or 

lower industry value. The GRIM uses a 

standard, annual discounted cash-flow 

analysis that incorporates manufacturer 

costs, markups, shipments, and industry 

financial information as inputs. The 

GRIM models changes in costs, 

distribution of shipments, investments, 

and manufacturer margins that could 

result from an amended energy 

conservation standard. The GRIM 

spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at 

a series of annual cash flows, beginning 

in 2023 (the base year of the analysis) 

and continuing to 2057. DOE calculated 

INPVs by summing the stream of annual 

discounted cash flows during this 

period. For manufacturers of 

dehumidifiers, DOE used a real discount 

rate of 8.4 percent, which was derived 

from industry financials and then 

modified according to feedback received 

during manufacturer interviews. 

The GRIM calculates cash flows using 

standard accounting principles and 

compares changes in INPV between the 

no-new-standards case and each 

standards case. The difference in INPV 

between the no-new-standards case and 

a standards case represents the financial 

impact of the amended energy 

conservation standard on 

manufacturers. As discussed previously, 

DOE developed critical GRIM inputs 

using a number of sources, including 

publicly available data, results of the 

engineering analysis, and information 

gathered from industry stakeholders 

during the course of manufacturer 

interviews. The GRIM results are 

presented in section V.B.2 of this 

document. Additional details about the 

GRIM, the discount rate, and other 

financial parameters can be found in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing more efficient 

equipment is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing baseline equipment 

due to the use of more complex 

components, which are typically more 

costly than baseline components. The 

changes in the MPCs of covered 

products can affect the revenues, gross 

margins, and cash flow of the industry. 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the engineering analysis: (1) 

relying on observed efficiency levels in 

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level 

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

design options to a baseline model (i.e., 

the design-option approach). In this 

proposed rulemaking, DOE relied on a 

combination of the efficiency-level 

approach and the design-option 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76537 

43The gross margin percentage of 29 percent is 

based on a manufacturer markup of 1.40. 

approach to develop cost estimates at 

each efficiency level for dehumidifiers, 

structured around the reverse 

engineering approach. The analysis 

involved reviewing publicly available 

cost and performance information, 

physically disassembling commercially 

available products and modeling 

equipment cost while removing costs 

associated with non-efficiency related 

components or features. DOE then 

considered the incremental steps 

manufacturers may take to reach higher 

efficiency levels. In its modeling, DOE 

started with the baseline MPC and 

added the expected design options at 

each higher efficiency level to estimate 

incremental MPCs. For a complete 

description of the MPCs, see section 

IV.C of this document or chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

b. Shipments Projections 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues based on total unit shipment 

projections and the distribution of those 

shipments by efficiency level. Changes 

in sales volumes and efficiency 

distributions over time can significantly 

affect manufacturer finances. For this 

analysis, the GRIM uses the NIA’s 

annual shipment projections derived 

from the shipments analysis from 2023 

(the base year) to 2057 (the end year of 

the analysis period). The shipments 

model takes an accounting approach, 

tracking market shares of each product 

class and the vintage of units in the 

stock. Stock accounting uses product 

shipments as inputs to estimate the age 

distribution of in-service product stocks 

for all years. DOE’s stock accounting 

model is calibrated based on historical 

shipments for portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers. See section IV.G of this 

document or chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD 

for additional details. 

c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs 

Amended energy conservation 

standards could cause manufacturers to 

incur conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and equipment 

designs into compliance. DOE evaluated 

the level of conversion-related 

expenditures that would be needed to 

comply with each considered efficiency 

level in each product class. For the MIA, 

DOE classified these conversion costs 

into two major groups: (1) capital 

conversion costs; and (2) product 

conversion costs. Capital conversion 

costs are investments in property, plant, 

and equipment necessary to adapt or 

change existing production facilities 

such that new compliant product 

designs can be fabricated and 

assembled. Product conversion costs are 

investments in research, development, 

testing, marketing, and other noncapitalized costs necessary to make 

product designs comply with amended 

energy conservation standards. 

DOE relied on feedback from 

manufacturer interviews and 

information from the product teardown 

and engineering analyses to estimate the 

capital investment required at each 

analyzed efficiency level. DOE asked 

manufacturers to estimate the capital 

conversion costs (e.g., changes in 

production processes, equipment, and 

tooling) to implement the various design 

options. The data generated from the 

product teardown and engineering 

analyses were used to estimate the 

capital investment in equipment and 

tooling required of OEMs at each 

efficiency level, considering such 

factors as product design, raw materials, 

purchased components, and fabrication 

method. Changes in equipment and 

tooling were used to estimate capital 

conversion costs. 

DOE relied on feedback from 

manufacturer interviews, the 

engineering analysis, and model counts 

from DOE’s Compliance Certification 

Database (CCD) to evaluate the product 

conversion costs industry would likely 

incur at the considered standard levels. 

In interviews, DOE asked manufacturers 

to estimate the redesign effort and 

engineering resources required at 

various efficiency levels to quantify the 

product conversion costs. DOE 

integrated feedback from manufacturers 

on redesign effort and staffing to 

estimate product conversion cost. 

Manufacturer numbers were aggregated 

to protect confidential information. DOE 

used model counts to scale the feedback 

gathered in interviews to the overall 

dehumidifier industry. 

In general, DOE assumes all 

conversion-related investments occur 

between the year of publication of the 

final rule and the year by which 

manufacturers must comply with the 

new standard. The conversion cost 

figures used in the GRIM can be found 

in section V.B.2 of this document. For 

additional information on the estimated 

capital and product conversion costs, 

see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 

MSPs include direct manufacturing 

production costs (i.e., labor, materials, 

and overhead estimated in DOE’s MPCs) 

and all non-production costs (i.e., 

SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with 

profit. To calculate the MSPs in the 

GRIM, DOE applied manufacturer 

markups to the MPCs estimated in the 

engineering analysis for each product 

class and efficiency level. Modifying 

these manufacturer markups in the 

standards case yields different sets of 

impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, 

DOE modeled two standards-case 

scenarios to represent uncertainty 

regarding the potential impacts on 

prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the 

implementation of amended energy 

conservation standards: (1) a 

preservation of gross margin percentage 

scenario; and (2) a preservation of 

operating profit scenario. These 

scenarios lead to different manufacturer 

markup values that, when applied to the 

MPCs, result in varying revenue and 

cash flow impacts. 

Under the preservation of gross 

margin percentage scenario, DOE 

applied a single uniform ‘‘gross margin 

percentage’’ markup across all efficiency 

levels, which assumes that 

manufacturers would be able to 

maintain the same amount of profit as 

a percentage of revenues at all efficiency 

levels within a product class. As 

manufacturer production costs increase 

with efficiency, this scenario implies 

that the per-unit dollar profit will 

increase. DOE assumed a gross margin 

percentage of 29 percent for all product 

classes.43 Manufacturers tend to believe 

it is optimistic to assume that they 

would be able to maintain the same 

gross margin percentage as their 

production costs increase, particularly 

for minimally efficient products. 

Therefore, this scenario represents an 

upper bound of industry profitability 

under an amended energy conservation 

standard. 

In the preservation of operating profit 

scenario, as the cost of production goes 

up under a standards case, 

manufacturers are generally required to 

reduce their manufacturer markups to a 

level that maintains base-case operating 

profit. DOE implemented this scenario 

in the GRIM by lowering the 

manufacturer markups at each TSL to 

yield approximately the same earnings 

before interest and taxes in the 

standards case as in the no-newstandards case in the year after the 

expected compliance date of the 

amended standards. The implicit 

assumption behind this scenario is that 

the industry can only maintain its 

operating profit in absolute dollars after 

the standard takes effect. 

A comparison of industry financial 

impacts under the two markup 

scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a 

of this document. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76538 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

44State of California Air Resource Board, 

‘‘Prohibitions on Use of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons 

in Stationary Refrigeration, Chillers, AerosolsPropellants, and Foam End-Uses Regulation.’’ 

Amendments effective January 1, 2022. 

ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/ 

2020/hfc2020/frorevised.pdf (last accessed March 4, 

2023). 45 In a public hearing to consider the proposed 

amendments to the Prohibitions on the Use of 

Certain Hydrofluorocarbons in Stationary 

Refrigeration, Chillers, Aerosols-Propellants, and 

Foam End-Uses regulation, CARB stated that a 

whole home dehumidifier would be regulated as 

‘‘Other Air-Conditioning Equipment’’ with a 

regulation effective date of January 1, 2025, and not 

as a ‘‘Residential Dehumidifier,’’ which is both selfcontained and portable. Public hearing date 

December 10, 2020. Agenda item number: 20–13– 

4. ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/ 

2020/hfc2020/fsorrevised.pdf (last accessed March 

4, 2023). 

46R–32 is classified as an A2L refrigerant. The 

A2L class defines refrigerants that are nontoxic, but 

mildly flammable. 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE interviewed manufacturers 

representing approximately 52 percent 

of industry shipments. Participants 

included both foreign and domestic 

OEMs with varying market shares and 

product class offerings. 

In interviews, DOE asked 

manufacturers to describe their major 

concerns regarding potential more 

stringent energy conservation standards 

for dehumidifiers. The following section 

highlights manufacturer concerns that 

helped inform the projected potential 

impacts of an amended standard on the 

industry. Manufacturer interviews are 

conducted under non-disclosure 

agreements (NDAs), so DOE does not 

document these discussions in the same 

way that it does public comments in the 

comment summaries and DOE’s 

responses throughout the rest of this 

document. 

a. Increases in Chassis Size 

In interviews, manufacturers 

expressed concern about efficiency 

levels that would necessitate increasing 

the chassis size to accommodate larger 

heat exchangers. First, these 

manufacturers stated that increasing the 

chassis size would require significant 

capital investment and engineering time 

to fully redesign their portfolio of 

dehumidifier models. Second, 

manufacturers stated that increasing the 

chassis size would add significant 

product costs, which would likely lead 

to lower sales volumes if consumers are 

not willing to pay for the higher upfront 

cost. Third, manufacturers of portable 

dehumidifiers with overseas production 

facilities expressed concern that 

increasing the chassis or cabinet size 

would negatively impact the loading 

capacity of the shipping container and 

increase shipping costs. Finally, some 

portable dehumidifier manufacturers 

expressed concern that the 3-year 

compliance period would be 

insufficient to develop cost-optimized 

models with new chassis designs to 

accommodate larger heat exchangers 

across their entire product portfolio. 

b. Refrigerant Regulation 

In interviews, manufacturers noted 

that new refrigerant regulations restrict 

the use of high-global warming potential 

(GWP) refrigerants in dehumidifiers, 

which increases cumulative regulatory 

burden. Specifically, during interviews, 

manufacturers discussed State 

regulations, such as CARB’s rulemaking 

prohibiting the use of refrigerants with 

a GWP of 750 or greater starting January 

1, 2023 for self-contained, residential 

dehumidifiers and starting January 1, 

2025 for whole-home dehumidifiers.44 45

Most manufacturers of portable 

dehumidifiers noted that they would 

likely transition to R–32, which is a 

classified as a flammable refrigerant.46 A 

whole-home manufacturer expressed 

uncertainty about the choice of lowGWP refrigerants but noted that the 

various alternative refrigerant options 

being considered are also classified as 

flammable refrigerants. All 

manufacturers interviewed stated that 

transitioning to a low-GWP refrigerant 

requires notable engineering time and 

capital investment to update production 

facilities to accommodate flammable 

refrigerants. Some portable 

dehumidifier manufacturers with 

experience transitioning other products 

(e.g., portable air conditioners) to make 

use of R–32 stated that the dehumidifier 

transition would be relatively 

straightforward given their prior 

experience with R–32. In interviews, 

manufacturers indicated that they had 

already started the development process 

but were waiting on EPA to finalize its 

SNAP proposed rule before starting 

production of dehumidifiers with lowGWP refrigerants. EPA has since 

finalized the SNAP rule allowing for the 

use of R–32. See 88 FR 26382. 

4. Discussion of MIA Comments 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, AHAM requested 

that DOE consider the impacts of tariffs 

on manufacturers, noting that 

manufacturers currently pay an 

additional 25 percent tariff under the 

China Section 301 tariffs for importing 

dehumidifiers on top of existing excise 

taxes and tariffs. According to AHAM, 

shipping costs are also impacted due to 

the shortage in shipping containers and 

lack of availability of transport to 

deliver manufactured products. (AHAM, 

No. 22 at pp. 3–4) 

Based on information from 

manufacturer interviews and a review of 

model listings from DOE’s CCD, DOE 

assumes nearly all portable units with 

25.00 pints/day or less (Product Class 1) 

and portable units with 25.01 to 50.00 

pints/day (Product Class 2) are 

manufactured in Asia. DOE also 

assumes that 50 percent of portable 

units greater than 50.00 pints/day 

(Product Class 3) and 20 percent of 

whole-home units (Product Classes 4 

and 5) are manufactured in Asia. 

Regarding U.S. tariffs on Chinese 

imports, DOE is aware that the Section 

301 tariffs on dehumidifiers increased to 

10 percent in September 2018 and to 25 

percent in May 2019. As result of tariffs, 

DOE expects that manufactures will 

begin to shift production of these 

products to countries in East Asia and 

Southeast Asia not subject to Section 

301 tariffs. However, due to uncertainty 

about the exact countries of origin, 

DOE’s engineering analysis continues to 

rely on data based on a Chinese point 

of origin. To revise MPCs to account for 

points of origin outside of China, DOE 

would require information on the 

countries of manufacture and 5-year 

averages for key inputs used to develop 

manufacturer production costs, such as 

fully-burdened production labor wage 

rates and local raw material prices. 

To better model the impact of Section 

301 tariffs on dehumidifiers that 

continue to be manufactured in China, 

DOE requires additional information 

about the portion of products still 

manufactured there and how the tariffs 

are absorbed by the entities along the 

room AC value chain, such as the 

foreign OEMs, U.S. importers, retailers, 

and consumers. Increases in retail price 

may affect consumer purchasing 

decisions, as captured by the price 

sensitivity modeled in the shipments 

analysis. Furthermore, DOE considers 

the costs of overseas and domestic 

shipping in its calculation of consumer 

price used in the LCC and PBP analyses. 

AHAM stated that manufacturers will 

face significant retooling and redesign 

costs if existing chassis sizes are 

insufficient to implement the 

technology options specified in the June 

2022 Preliminary Analysis. (AHAM, No. 

22 at p. 3) 

DOE used results of the product 

teardown and engineering analyses as 

well as feedback from confidential 

manufacturer interviews to estimate the 

capital and product conversion costs 

required to reach each analyzed 

efficiency level, which included design 

options that would require a change in 

chassis size. See section IV.J.2.c of this 

document for a discussion on the 

conversion cost methodology and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76539 

47Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_

apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12, 2021). 

48For further information, see the Assumptions to 

AEO2023 report that sets forth the major 

assumptions used to generate the projections in the 

Annual Energy Outlook 2023. Available at 

www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last 

accessed August 21, 2023). 

49CSAPR requires states to address annual 

emissions of SO2 and NOX, precursors to the 

formation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(‘‘NAAQS’’). CSAPR also requires certain states to 

address the ozone season (May–September) 

emissions of NOX, a precursor to the formation of 

ozone pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

EPA subsequently issued a supplemental rule that 

included an additional five states in the CSAPR 

ozone season program. 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 

(Supplemental Rule). 

section V.B.2.a of this document for a 

description of conversion costs by TSL. 

MIAQ stated that in addition to small 

business manufacturers, refrigerant 

desiccant dehumidifier manufacturers 

could also be disproportionally affected 

by amended energy conservation 

standards for dehumidifiers. (MIAQ, No. 

20 at pp. 5–6) 

At the time of this NOPR analysis, 

DOE is not aware of any consumer 

refrigerant desiccant dehumidifiers 

currently available on the market. 

However, DOE tentatively expects that 

manufacturers of refrigerant desiccant 

dehumidifiers would follow a similar 

design path as pure refrigerant-based 

whole-home dehumidifiers if they were 

to introduce new models of consumer 

refrigerant desiccant dehumidifiers to 

the market. Thus, DOE tentatively 

determined that the industry analysis 

reasonably represents the potential 

impacts to refrigerant desiccant 

dehumidifier manufacturers. 

DOE requests comment on its 

tentative conclusion that refrigerant 

desiccant dehumidifier manufacturers 

would be similarly impacted by 

potential amended standards and 

therefore would not warrant a separate 

subgroup analysis. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

The emissions analysis consists of 

two components. The first component 

estimates the effect of potential energy 

conservation standards on power sector 

and site (where applicable) combustion 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 

The second component estimates the 

impacts of potential standards on 

emissions of two additional greenhouse 

gases, CH4 and N2O, as well as the 

reductions to emissions of other gases 

due to ‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel 

production chain. These upstream 

activities comprise extraction, 

processing, and transporting fuels to the 

site of combustion. 

The analysis of electric power sector 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg 

uses emissions factors intended to 

represent the marginal impacts of the 

change in electricity consumption 

associated with amended or new 

standards. The methodology is based on 

results published for the AEO, including 

a set of side cases that implement a 

variety of efficiency-related policies. 

The methodology is described in 

appendix 13A in the NOPR TSD. The 

analysis presented in this document 

uses projections from AEO2023. Power 

sector emissions of CH4 and N2O from 

fuel combustion are estimated using 

Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories published by the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA).47 FFC upstream emissions, 

which include emissions from fuel 

combustion during extraction, 

processing, and transportation of fuels, 

and ‘‘fugitive’’ emissions (direct leakage 

to the atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2, are 

estimated based on the methodology 

described in chapter 15 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

The emissions intensity factors are 

expressed in terms of physical units per 

megawatt hour (MWh) or metric million 

British thermal unit MMBtu of site 

energy savings. For power sector 

emissions, specific emissions intensity 

factors are calculated by sector and end 

use. Total emissions reductions are 

estimated using the energy savings 

calculated in the national impact 

analysis. 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated 

in DOE’s Analysis 

DOE’s no-new-standards case for the 

electric power sector reflects the AEO, 

which incorporates the projected 

impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO2023 

reflects, to the extent possible, laws and 

regulations adopted through midNovember 2022, including the 

emissions control programs discussed in 

the following paragraphs and the 

Inflation Reduction Act.48

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (‘‘EGUs’’) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States and the District of 

Columbia (‘‘DC’’). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et 

seq.) SO2 emissions from numerous 

States in the eastern half of the United 

States are also limited under the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (‘‘CSAPR’’). 76 

FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR 

requires these States to reduce certain 

emissions, including annual SO2

emissions, and went into effect as of 

January 1, 2015.49 The AEO 

incorporates implementation of CSAPR, 

including the update to the CSAPR 

ozone season program emission budgets 

and target dates issued in 2016. 81 FR 

74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). Compliance with 

CSAPR is flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of tradable 

emissions allowances. Under existing 

EPA regulations, any excess SO2

emissions allowances resulting from the 

lower electricity demand caused by the 

adoption of an efficiency standard could 

be used to permit offsetting increases in 

SO2 emissions by another regulated 

EGU. 

However, beginning in 2016, SO2

emissions began to fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(‘‘MATS’’) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 

(Feb. 16, 2012). Because of the 

emissions reductions under the MATS, 

it is unlikely that excess SO2 emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand would be needed or 

used to permit offsetting increases in 

SO2 emissions by another regulated 

EGU. Therefore, energy conservation 

standards that decrease electricity 

generation would generally reduce SO2

emissions. DOE estimated SO2

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO2023. 

CSAPR also established limits on NOX

emissions for numerous States in the 

eastern half of the United States. Energy 

conservation standards would have 

little effect on NOX emissions in those 

States covered by CSAPR emissions 

limits if excess NOX emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in NOX

emissions from other EGUs. In such 

case, NOX emissions would remain near 

the limit even if electricity generation 

goes down. A different case could 

possibly result, depending on the 

configuration of the power sector in the 

different regions and the need for 

allowances, such that NOX emissions 

might not remain at the limit in the case 

of lower electricity demand. In this case, 

energy conservation standards might 

reduce NOX emissions in covered 

States. Despite this possibility, DOE has 

chosen to be conservative in its analysis 

and has maintained the assumption that 

standards will not reduce NOX

emissions in States covered by CSAPR. 

Energy conservation standards would be 

expected to reduce NOX emissions in 

the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE 

used AEO2023 data to derive NOX


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76540 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

50Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. 

Newbold, and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and 

N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the US 

Government’s SC–CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 

2015. 15(2): pp. 272–298. 

51National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating 

Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. 

2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, 

DC. 

emissions factors for the group of States 

not covered by CSAPR. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would be expected to slightly reduce Hg 

emissions. DOE estimated mercury 

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO2023, which 

incorporates the MATS. 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

proposed rule, for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, DOE 

considered the estimated monetary 

benefits from the reduced emissions of 

CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX, and SO2 that are 

expected to result from each of the TSLs 

considered. In order to make this 

calculation analogous to the calculation 

of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE 

considered the reduced emissions 

expected to result over the lifetime of 

products shipped in the projection 

period for each TSL. This section 

summarizes the basis for the values 

used for monetizing the emissions 

benefits and presents the values 

considered in this NOPR. 

To monetize the benefits of reducing 

GHG emissions this analysis uses the 

interim estimates presented in the 

Technical Support Document: Social 

Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous 

Oxide Interim Estimates Under 

Executive Order 13990 published in 

February 2021 by the Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 

DOE requests comment on how to 

address the climate benefits and other 

effects of the proposal. 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

DOE estimates the monetized benefits 

of the reductions in emissions of CO2, 

CH4, and N2O by using a measure of the 

social cost (‘‘SC’’) of each pollutant (e.g., 

SC–CO2). These estimates represent the 

monetary value of the net harm to 

society associated with a marginal 

increase in emissions of these pollutants 

in a given year, or the benefit of 

avoiding that increase. These estimates 

are intended to include (but are not 

limited to) climate change-related 

changes in net agricultural productivity, 

human health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, disruption of 

energy systems, risk of conflict, 

environmental migration, and the value 

of ecosystem services. 

DOE exercises its own judgment in 

presenting monetized climate benefits 

as recommended by applicable 

executive orders, and DOE would reach 

the same conclusion presented in this 

proposed rulemaking in the absence of 

the social cost of greenhouse gases. That 

is, the social costs of greenhouse gases, 

whether measured using the February 

2021 interim estimates presented by the 

Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases or by 

another means, did not affect the rule 

ultimately proposed by DOE. 

DOE estimated the global social 

benefits of CO2, CH4, and N2O 

reductions (i.e., SC–GHGs) using the 

estimates presented in the Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of 

Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates under E.O. 13990, 

published in February 2021 by the IWG 

(‘‘February 2021 SC–GHG TSD’’). The 

SC–GHGs is the monetary value of the 

net harm to society associated with a 

marginal increase in emissions in a 

given year, or the benefit of avoiding 

that increase. In principle, SC–GHGs 

includes the value of all climate change 

impacts, including (but not limited to) 

changes in net agricultural productivity, 

human health effects, property damage 

from increased flood risk and natural 

disasters, disruption of energy systems, 

risk of conflict, environmental 

migration, and the value of ecosystem 

services. The SC–GHGs therefore 

reflects the societal value of reducing 

emissions of the gas in question by one 

metric ton. The SC–GHGs is the 

theoretically appropriate value to use in 

conducting benefit-cost analyses of 

policies that affect CO2, N2O, and CH4

emissions. As a member of the IWG 

involved in the development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, DOE 

agrees that the interim SC–GHG 

estimates represent the most appropriate 

estimate of the SC–GHG until revised 

estimates have been developed 

reflecting the latest peer-reviewed 

science. 

The SC–GHG estimates presented in 

this NOPR were developed over many 

years using a transparent process, the 

best science available at the time of that 

process, peer-reviewed methodologies, 

and input from the public. Specifically, 

in 2009, the IWG—which included the 

DOE and other executive branch 

agencies and offices—was established to 

ensure that agencies were using the best 

available science and to promote 

consistency in the social cost of carbon 

(‘‘SC–CO2’’) values used across agencies. 

The IWG published SC–CO2 estimates 

in 2010 that were developed from an 

ensemble of three widely cited 

integrated assessment models (‘‘IAMs’’) 

that estimate global climate damages 

using highly aggregated representations 

of climate processes and the global 

economy combined into a single 

modeling framework. The three IAMs 

were run using a common set of input 

assumptions in each model for future 

population, economic, and CO2

emissions growth, as well as 

equilibrium climate sensitivity—a 

measure of the globally averaged 

temperature response to increased 

atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These 

estimates were updated in 2013 based 

on new versions of each IAM. In August 

2016, the IWG published estimates of 

the social cost of methane (‘‘SC–CH4’’) 

and nitrous oxide (‘‘SC–N2O’’) using 

methodologies that are consistent with 

the methodology underlying the SC– 

CO2 estimates. The modeling approach 

that extends the IWG SC–CO2

methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has 

undergone multiple stages of peer 

review. The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates were developed by Marten et 

al.50 and underwent a standard doubleblind peer review process prior to 

journal publication. In 2015, as part of 

the response to public comments 

received to a 2013 solicitation for 

comments on the SC–CO2 estimates, the 

IWG announced a National Academies 

of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

(‘‘National Academies’’) review of the 

SC–CO2 estimates to offer advice on 

how to approach future updates to 

ensure that the estimates continue to 

reflect the best available science and 

methodologies. In January 2017, the 

National Academies released their final 

report, Valuing Climate Damages: 

Updating Estimation of the Social Cost 

of Carbon Dioxide, and recommended 

specific criteria for future updates to the 

SC–CO2 estimates, a modeling 

framework to satisfy the specified 

criteria, and both near-term updates and 

longer-term research needs pertaining to 

various components of the estimation 

process.51 Shortly thereafter, in March 

2017, President Trump issued E.O. 

13783, which disbanded the IWG, 

withdrew the previous TSDs, and 

directed agencies to ensure SC–CO2

estimates used in regulatory analyses 

are consistent with the guidance 

contained in OMB’s Circular A–4, 

‘‘including with respect to the 

consideration of domestic versus 

international impacts and the 

consideration of appropriate discount 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76541 

52 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Carbon, United States Government. Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for 

Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 

12866. 2010. Available at www.epa.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf 

(last accessed April 15, 2022); Interagency Working 

Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States 

Government. Technical Support Document: 

Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for 

Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 

No. 12866. 2013. Available at 

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/ 

2013-28242/technical-support-document-technicalupdate-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatoryimpact (last accessed April 15, 2022); Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, 

United States Government. Technical Support 

Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866. August 2016. Available at 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/ 

documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf (last 

accessed January 18, 2022); Interagency Working 

Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United 

States Government. Addendum to Technical 

Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for 

Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 

12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate 

the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of 

Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. www.epa.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_scghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf (last accessed January 18, 

2022). 

rates’’ (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). 

Benefit-cost analyses following E.O. 

13783 used SC–GHG estimates that 

attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific 

share of climate change damages as 

estimated by the models and were 

calculated using two discount rates 

recommended by Circular A–4: 3- 

percent and 7-percent. All other 

methodological decisions and model 

versions used in SC–GHG calculations 

remained the same as those used by the 

IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively. 

On January 20, 2021, President Biden 

issued E.O. 13990, which re-established 

the IWG and directed it to ensure that 

the U.S. Government’s estimates of the 

social cost of carbon and other 

greenhouse gases reflect the best 

available science and the 

recommendations in the National 

Academies 2017 report. The IWG was 

tasked with first reviewing the SC–GHG 

estimates currently used in Federal 

analyses and publishing interim 

estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that 

reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions, including by taking global 

damages into account. The interim SC– 

GHG estimates published in February 

2021 are used here to estimate the 

climate benefits for this proposed 

rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG 

to undertake a fuller update of the SC– 

GHG estimates that takes into 

consideration the advice of the National 

Academies 2017 report and other recent 

scientific literature. The February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD provides a complete 

discussion of the IWG’s initial review 

conducted under E.O. 13990. In 

particular, the IWG found that the SC– 

GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 

fail to reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions in multiple ways. 

First, the IWG found that the SC–GHG 

estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to 

fully capture many climate impacts that 

affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and 

residents, and those impacts are better 

reflected by global measures of the SC– 

GHG. Examples of omitted effects from 

the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct 

effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and 

investments located abroad, supply 

chains, U.S. military assets and interests 

abroad, and tourism, and spillover 

pathways such as economic and 

political destabilization and global 

migration that can lead to adverse 

impacts on U.S. national security, 

public health, and humanitarian 

concerns. In addition, assessing the 

benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation 

activities requires consideration of how 

those actions may affect mitigation 

activities by other countries, as those 

international mitigation actions will 

provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 

residents by mitigating climate impacts 

that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A 

wide range of scientific and economic 

experts have emphasized the issue of 

reciprocity as support for considering 

global damages of GHG emissions. If the 

United States does not consider impacts 

on other countries, it is difficult to 

convince other countries to consider the 

impacts of their emissions on the United 

States. The only way to achieve efficient 

allocation of resources for emissions 

reduction on a global basis—and so 

benefit the U.S. and its citizens—is for 

all countries to base their policies on 

global estimates of damages. As a 

member of the IWG involved in the 

development of the February 2021 SC– 

GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this 

assessment and, therefore, in this 

proposed rule DOE centers attention on 

a global measure of SC–GHG. This 

approach is the same as that taken in 

DOE regulatory analyses from 2012 

through 2016. A robust estimate of 

climate damages that accrue only to U.S. 

citizens and residents does not currently 

exist in the literature. As explained in 

the February 2021 TSD, existing 

estimates are both incomplete and an 

underestimation of total damages that 

accrue to the citizens and residents of 

the U.S. because they do not fully 

capture the regional interactions and 

spillovers discussed above, nor do they 

include all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of 

climate change recognized in the 

climate change literature. As noted in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the 

IWG will continue to review 

developments in the literature, 

including more robust methodologies 

for estimating a U.S.-specific SC–GHG 

value, and explore ways to better inform 

the public of the full range of carbon 

impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE 

will continue to follow developments in 

the literature pertaining to this issue. 

Second, the IWG found that the use of 

the social rate of return on capital (7 

percent under current OMB Circular A– 

4 guidance) to discount the future 

benefits of reducing GHG emissions 

inappropriately underestimates the 

impacts of climate change for the 

purposes of estimating the SC–GHG. 

Consistent with the findings of the 

National Academies and the economic 

literature, the IWG continued to 

conclude that the consumption rate of 

interest is the theoretically appropriate 

discount rate in an intergenerational 

context,52 and recommended that 

discount rate uncertainty and relevant 

aspects of intergenerational ethical 

considerations be accounted for in 

selecting future discount rates. 

Furthermore, the damage estimates 

developed for use in the SC–GHG are 

estimated in consumption-equivalent 

terms, and so an application of OMB 

Circular A–4’s guidance for regulatory 

analysis would then use the 

consumption discount rate to calculate 

the SC–GHG. DOE agrees with this 

assessment and will continue to follow 

developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes 

that while OMB Circular A–4, as 

published in 2003, recommends using 

3-percent and 7-percent discount rates 

as ‘‘default’’ values, Circular A–4 also 

reminds agencies that ‘‘different 

regulations may call for different 

emphases in the analysis, depending on 

the nature and complexity of the 

regulatory issues and the sensitivity of 

the benefit and cost estimates to the key 

assumptions.’’ On discounting, Circular 

A–4 recognizes that ‘‘special ethical 

considerations arise when comparing 

benefits and costs across generations,’’ 

and Circular A–4 acknowledges that 

analyses may appropriately ‘‘discount 

future costs and consumption benefits 

. . . at a lower rate than for 

intragenerational analysis.’’ In the 2015 

Response to Comments on the Social 

Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG 

members recognized that ‘‘Circular A–4 

is a living document’’ and ‘‘the use of 

7 percent is not considered appropriate 

for intergenerational discounting. There 

is wide support for this view in the 

academic literature, and it is recognized 

in Circular A–4 itself.’’ Thus, DOE 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76542 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

53 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and 

Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 

Order 13990. February. United States Government. 

Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/ 

TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. 

54See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, Washington, DC, 

December 2021. Available at nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ 

ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013ORN.pdf (last accessed 

February 21, 2023). 

concludes that a 7-percent discount rate 

is not appropriate to apply to value the 

social cost of greenhouse gases in the 

analysis presented in this analysis. 

To calculate the present and 

annualized values of climate benefits, 

DOE uses the same discount rate as the 

rate used to discount the value of 

damages from future GHG emissions, for 

internal consistency. That approach to 

discounting follows the same approach 

that the February 2021 TSD 

recommends ‘‘to ensure internal 

consistency—i.e., future damages from 

climate change using the SC–GHG at 2.5 

percent should be discounted to the 

base year of the analysis using the same 

2.5 percent rate.’’ DOE has also 

consulted the National Academies’ 2017 

recommendations on how SC–GHG 

estimates can ‘‘be combined in RIAs 

with other cost and benefits estimates 

that may use different discount rates.’’ 

The National Academies reviewed 

several options, including ‘‘presenting 

all discount rate combinations of other 

costs and benefits with [SC–GHG] 

estimates.’’ 

As a member of the IWG involved in 

the development of the February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the 

above assessment and will continue to 

follow developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. While the IWG 

works to assess how best to incorporate 

the latest peer-reviewed science to 

develop an updated set of SC–GHG 

estimates, it set the interim estimates to 

be the most recent ones developed by 

the IWG prior to the group being 

disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely 

on the same models and harmonized 

inputs and are calculated using a range 

of discount rates. As explained in the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the IWG 

has recommended that agencies revert 

to the same set of four values drawn 

from the SC–GHG distributions based 

on three discount rates as were used in 

regulatory analyses between 2010 and 

2016 and were subject to public 

comment. For each discount rate, the 

IWG combined the distributions across 

models and socioeconomic emissions 

scenarios (applying equal weight to 

each) and then selected a set of four 

values recommended for use in benefitcost analyses: an average value resulting 

from the model runs for each of three 

discount rates (2.5-percent, 3-percent, 

and 5-percent), plus a fourth value, 

selected as the 95th percentile of 

estimates based on a 3-percent discount 

rate. The fourth value was included to 

provide information on potentially 

higher-than-expected economic impacts 

from climate change. As explained in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, and 

DOE agrees, this update reflects the 

immediate need to have an operational 

SC–GHG for use in regulatory benefitcost analyses and other applications 

developed using a transparent process, 

the science available at the time of that 

process, and peer-reviewed 

methodologies. Those estimates were 

subject to public comment in the 

context of dozens of proposed 

rulemakings as well as in a dedicated 

public comment period in 2013. 

There are a number of limitations and 

uncertainties associated with the SC– 

GHG estimates. First, the current 

scientific and economic understanding 

of discounting approaches suggests 

discount rates appropriate for 

intergenerational analysis in the context 

of climate change are likely to be less 

than 3 percent, near 2 percent, or 

lower.53 Second, the IAMs used to 

produce these interim estimates do not 

include all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of 

climate change recognized in the 

climate change literature and the 

science underlying their ‘‘damage 

functions’’ (i.e., the core parts of the 

IAMs that map global mean temperature 

changes and other physical impacts of 

climate change into economic (both 

market and nonmarket) damages) lags 

behind the most recent research. For 

example, limitations include the 

incomplete treatment of catastrophic 

and non-catastrophic impacts in the 

integrated assessment models, their 

incomplete treatment of adaptation and 

technological change, the incomplete 

way in which inter-regional and 

intersectoral linkages are modeled, 

uncertainty in the extrapolation of 

damages to high temperatures, and 

inadequate representation of the 

relationship between the discount rate 

and uncertainty in economic growth 

over long time horizons. Likewise, the 

socioeconomic and emissions scenarios 

used as inputs to the models do not 

reflect new information from the last 

decade of scenario generation or the full 

range of projections. The modeling 

limitations do not all work in the same 

direction in terms of their influence on 

the SC–CO2 estimates. However, as 

discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the 

IWG has recommended that, taken 

together, the limitations suggest that the 

interim SC–GHG estimates used in this 

proposed rule likely underestimate the 

damages from GHG emissions. DOE 

concurs with this assessment. 

DOE’s derivations of the SC–CO2, SC– 

N2O, and SC–CH4 values used for this 

NOPR are discussed in the following 

sections, and the results of DOE’s 

analyses estimating the benefits of the 

reductions in emissions of these GHGs 

are presented in section V.B.6 of this 

document. 

a. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SC–CO2 values used for this final 

rule were based on the values developed 

for the IWG’s February 2021 TSD, which 

are shown in Table IV.7 in five-year 

increments from 2020 to 2050. The set 

of annual values that DOE used, which 

was adapted from estimates published 

by EPA,54 is presented in appendix 14A 

of the NOPR TSD. These estimates are 

based on methods, assumptions, and 

parameters identical to the estimates 

published by the IWG (which were 

based on EPA modeling), and include 

values for 2051 to 2070. DOE expects 

additional climate benefits to accrue for 

products still operating after 2070, but 

a lack of available SC–CO2 estimates for 

emissions years beyond 2070 prevents 

DOE from monetizing these potential 

benefits in this analysis. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76543 

55U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing 

Directly-Emitted PM2.5,PM2.5 Precursors and Ozone 

Precursors from 21 Sectors. www.epa.gov/benmap/ 

estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-directly-emittedpm25-pm25-precursors-and-ozone-precursors. 

TABLE IV.8—ANNUAL SC–CO2 VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 

[2020$ per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 14 51 76 152 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 17 56 83 169 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 19 62 89 187 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 22 67 96 206 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 25 73 103 225 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 28 79 110 242 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 32 85 116 260 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SC–CO2 value for that year in each of 

the four cases. DOE adjusted the values 

to 2022$ using the implicit price 

deflator for GDP from the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. To calculate a 

present value of the stream of monetary 

values, DOE discounted the values in 

each of the four cases using the specific 

discount rate that had been used to 

obtain the SC–CO2 values in each case. 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values used 

for this NOPR were based on the values 

developed for the February 2021 TSD. 

Table IV.8 shows the updated sets of 

SC–CH4 and SC–N2O estimates from the 

latest interagency update in 5-year 

increments from 2020 to 2050. The full 

set of annual values used is presented 

in appendix 14A of the NOPR TSD. To 

capture the uncertainties involved in 

regulatory impact analysis, DOE has 

determined it is appropriate to include 

all four sets of SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

values, as recommended by the IWG. 

DOE derived values after 2050 using the 

approach described above for the SC– 

CO2 values. 

TABLE IV.9—ANNUAL SC–CH4 AND SC–N2O VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 

[2020$ per metric ton] 

Year 

SC–CH4 SC–N2O 

Discount rate and statistic Discount rate and statistic 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile Average Average Average 95th percentile 

2020 .................................. 670 1,500 2,000 3,900 5,800 18,000 27,000 48,000 

2025 .................................. 800 1,700 2,200 4,500 6,800 21,000 30,000 54,000 

2030 .................................. 940 2,000 2,500 5,200 7,800 23,000 33,000 60,000 

2035 .................................. 1,100 2,200 2,800 6,000 9,000 25,000 36,000 67,000 

2040 .................................. 1,300 2,500 3,100 6,700 10,000 28,000 39,000 74,000 

2045 .................................. 1,500 2,800 3,500 7,500 12,000 30,000 42,000 81,000 

2050 .................................. 1,700 3,100 3,800 8,200 13,000 33,000 45,000 88,000 

DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O 

emissions reduction estimated for each 

year by the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates for that year in each of the 

cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2022$ 

using the implicit price deflator for GDP 

from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

To calculate a present value of the 

stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

cases using the specific discount rate 

that had been used to obtain the SC–CH4

and SC–N2O estimates in each case. 

2. Monetization of Other Emissions 

Impacts 

For the NOPR, DOE estimated the 

monetized value of NOX and SO2

emissions reductions from electricity 

generation using the latest benefit per 

ton estimates for that sector from the 

EPA’s Benefits Mapping and Analysis 

Program.55 DOE used EPA’s values for 

PM2.5-related benefits associated with 

NOX and SO2 and for ozone-related 

benefits associated with NOX for 2025, 

2030, and 2040, calculated with 

discount rates of 3-percent and 7- 

percent. DOE used linear interpolation 

to define values for the years not given 

in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years 

beyond 2040, the values are held 

constant. DOE combined the EPA 

regional benefit-per-ton estimates with 

regional information on electricity 

consumption and emissions from 

AEO2023 to define weighted-average 

national values for NOX and SO2 (see 

appendix 14B of the NOPR TSD). 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

the changes in installed electrical 

capacity and generation projected to 

result for each considered TSL. The 

analysis is based on published output 

from the NEMS associated with 

AEO2023. NEMS produces the AEO 

Reference case, as well as a number of 

side cases that estimate the economywide impacts of changes to energy 

supply and demand. For the current 

analysis, impacts are quantified by 

comparing the levels of electricity sector 

generation, installed capacity, fuel 

consumption and emissions in the 

AEO2023 Reference case and various 

side cases. Details of the methodology 

are provided in the appendices to 

chapters 13 and 15 of the NOPR TSD. 

The output of this analysis is a set of 

time-dependent coefficients that capture 

the change in electricity generation, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76544 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

56See U.S. Department of Commerce—Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User 

Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling 

System (RIMS II). 1997. U.S. Government Printing 

Office: Washington, DC. Available at https://

www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/methodologies/ 

RIMSII_User_Guide.pdf (last accessed February 22, 

2023). 

57Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and 

R.W. Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies Model Description and User Guide. 

2015. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: 

Richland, WA. PNNL–24563. 

primary fuel consumption, installed 

capacity and power sector emissions 

due to a unit reduction in demand for 

a given end use. These coefficients are 

multiplied by the stream of electricity 

savings calculated in the NIA to provide 

estimates of selected utility impacts of 

potential new or amended energy 

conservation standards. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a proposed standard. 

Employment impacts from new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

include both direct and indirect 

impacts. Direct employment impacts are 

any changes in the number of 

employees of manufacturers of the 

products subject to standards, their 

suppliers, and related service firms. The 

MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect 

employment impacts are changes in 

national employment that occur due to 

the shift in expenditures and capital 

investment caused by the purchase and 

operation of more-efficient appliances. 

Indirect employment impacts from 

standards consist of the net jobs created 

or eliminated in the national economy, 

other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, caused by (1) reduced 

spending by consumers on energy, (2) 

reduced spending on new energy supply 

by the utility industry, (3) increased 

consumer spending on the products to 

which the new standards apply and 

other goods and services, and (4) the 

effects of those three factors throughout 

the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (‘‘BLS’’). BLS regularly 

publishes its estimates of the number of 

jobs per million dollars of economic 

activity in different sectors of the 

economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy.56 There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital-intensive and less 

labor-intensive than other sectors. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing consumer utility bills. 

Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and service sectors). Thus, the BLS data 

suggest that net national employment 

may increase due to shifts in economic 

activity resulting from energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE estimated indirect national 

employment impacts for the standard 

levels considered in this NOPR using an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies version 4 (‘‘ImSET’’).57

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (‘‘I–O’’) model, which was 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model having structural coefficients that 

characterize economic flows among 187 

sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use. 

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 

equilibrium forecasting model, and that 

the uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may overestimate actual job impacts 

over the long run for this rule. 

Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to 

generate results for near-term 

timeframes (2028–2032), where these 

uncertainties are reduced. For more 

details on the employment impact 

analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to the considered energy 

conservation standards for 

dehumidifiers. It addresses the TSLs 

examined by DOE, the projected 

impacts of each of these levels if 

adopted as energy conservation 

standards for dehumidifiers, and the 

standards levels that DOE is proposing 

to adopt in this NOPR. Additional 

details regarding DOE’s analyses are 

contained in the NOPR TSD supporting 

this document. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

In general, DOE typically evaluates 

new or potential amended standards for 

products and equipment by grouping 

individual efficiency levels for each 

class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE 

to identify and consider manufacturer 

cost interactions between the product 

classes, to the extent that there are such 

interactions, and price elasticity of 

consumer purchasing decisions that 

may change when different standard 

levels are set. 

In the analysis conducted for this 

NOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of four TSLs for dehumidifiers. 

DOE developed TSLs that combine 

efficiency levels for each analyzed 

product class. TSL 1 represents the 

smallest incremental increase in 

analyzed efficiency level above the 

baseline for each analyzed product 

class. TSL 2 corresponds to current 

ENERGY STAR® requirements for all 

product classes. TSL 3 is an 

intermediate TSL that maintains 

positive average LCC savings for all 

product classes while increasing 

stringency for Product Classes 1, 2, 4, 

and 5. TSL 4 represents max-tech. DOE 

presents the results for the TSLs in this 

document, while the results for all 

efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are 

in the NOPR TSD. 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, AHAM raised 

concerns about the technological 

feasibility and the economic impact of 

setting the amended energy 

conservation standard at EL 3 for all 

portable product classes. AHAM also 

questioned whether DOE can justify 

proposing a standard where a majority 

of energy savings come from one 

product class. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 8) 

To clarify, DOE does not propose 

adopting standard levels at the 

Preliminary Analysis stage. The current 

NOPR analysis has been updated based 

on stakeholder feedback received in 

response to the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, additional tear down of units 

to support the engineering analysis, and 

manufacturer interviews. For this NOPR 

analysis, DOE analyzed four trial 

standard levels and proposes a TSL that 

DOE considers technologically feasible 

and economically justified based on a 

multitude of factors (see section V.C.1 

for discussion of the benefits and 

burdens of TSLs considered in this 

NOPR). 

Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding efficiency levels that 

DOE has identified for potential 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76545 

amended energy conservation standards 

for dehumidifiers. 

TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS

TSL 

Portable Whole-home 

PC1: ≤25.00 pints/day PC2: 25.01–50.00 

pints/day PC3: >50.00 pints/day PC4: ≤8.0 cu. ft. PC5: >8.0 cu. ft. 

EL IEF 

(L/kWh) EL IEF (L/kWh) EL IEF (L/kWh) 

EL IEF 

(L/kWh) EL IEF (L/kWh) 

1 ............................... 1 1.40 1 1.70 1 3.10 1 2.09 1 2.70 

2 ............................... 2 1.57 2 1.80 2 3.30 1 2.09 2 3.30 

3 ............................... 3 1.70 3 2.01 1 3.10 2 2.22 3 3.81 

4 ............................... 5 2.32 5 2.38 4 3.67 3 2.39 4 4.17 

For Product Class 3, DOE found that 

EL 3 results in the largest average LCC 

loss and the highest percent of 

consumers negatively impacted 

consumers among considered efficiency 

levels. Similarly, for Product Classes 1 

and 2, EL 4 results in the smallest 

average LCC savings and the highest 

percent of consumers negatively 

impacted among considered efficiency 

levels. Therefore, DOE did not include 

these ELs in the construction of TSLs. 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on dehumidifier consumers by looking 

at the effects that potential amended 

standards at each TSL would have on 

the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined 

the impacts of potential standards on 

selected consumer subgroups. These 

analyses are discussed in the following 

sections. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

In general, higher-efficiency products 

affect consumers in two ways: (1) 

purchase price increases and (2) annual 

operating costs decreases. Inputs used 

for calculating the LCC and PBP include 

total installed costs (i.e., product price 

plus installation costs), and operating 

costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy 

prices, energy price trends, repair costs, 

and maintenance costs). The LCC 

calculation also uses product lifetime 

and a discount rate. Chapter [8] of the 

NOPR TSD provides detailed 

information on the LCC and PBP 

analyses. 

Table V.2 through Table V.11 show 

the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs 

considered for each product class. In the 

first of each pair of tables, the simple 

payback is measured relative to the 

baseline product. In the second table, 

impacts are measured relative to the 

efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case in the compliance year 

(see section IV.F.8 of this document). 

Because some consumers purchase 

products with higher efficiency in the 

no-new-standards case, the average 

savings are less than the difference 

between the average LCC of the baseline 

product and the average LCC at each 

TSL. The savings refer only to 

consumers who are affected by a 

standard at a given TSL. Those who 

already purchase a product with 

efficiency at or above a given TSL are 

not affected. Consumers for whom the 

LCC increases at a given TSL experience 

a net cost. 

TABLE V.2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 1: PORTABLE DEHUMIDIFIERS

[≤25.00 pints/day] 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

IEF 

(L/kWh) 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Baseline 1.30 $279 $66 $569 $848 .................... 10.0 

1 ....................................... 1 1.40 283 61 531 814 1.0 10.0 

2 ....................................... 2 1.57 288 55 479 767 0.9 10.0 

3 ....................................... 3 1.70 293 51 444 737 0.9 10.0 

4 1.94 397 46 396 793 5.9 10.0 

4 ....................................... 5 2.32 447 39 337 784 6.3 10.0 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76546 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.3—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 1: PORTABLE

DEHUMIDIFIERS

[≤25.00 pints/day] 

TSL Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average LCC 

savings * +

(2022$) 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience net 

cost 

(%) 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 1 $0 0 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 46 1 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 42 3 

4 (17) 70 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 5 (9) 65 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

+ Parentheses denote negative (¥) values. 

TABLE V.4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 2: PORTABLE DEHUMIDIFIERS

[25.01–50.00 pints/day] 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

IEF 

(L/kWh) 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Baseline 1.60 $315 $112 $968 $1,283 .................... 10.0 

1 ....................................... 1 1.70 319 106 915 1,234 0.7 10.0 

2 ....................................... 2 1.80 324 100 869 1,193 0.8 10.0 

3 ....................................... 3 2.01 327 91 784 1,112 0.6 10.0 

4 2.07 429 89 767 1,196 4.9 10.0 

4 ....................................... 5 2.38 493 78 676 1,169 5.3 10.0 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 2: PORTABLE

DEHUMIDIFIERS

[25.01–50.00 pints/day] 

TSL Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average LCC 

savings *

(2022$) 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

(%) 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 1 $0 0 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 0 0 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 81 0 

4 (13) 68 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 5 14 60 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

TABLE V.6—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 3: PORTABLE DEHUMIDIFIERS

[>50.00 pints/day] 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

IEF 

(L/kWh) 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Baseline 2.80 $1,043 $88 $765 $1,807 .................... 10.0 

1,3 .................................... 1 3.10 1,080 80 696 1,776 4.8 10.0 

2 ....................................... 2 3.30 1,149 76 657 1,807 8.7 10.0 

3 3.51 1,248 72 622 1,870 12.5 10.0 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76547 

TABLE V.6—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 3: PORTABLE DEHUMIDIFIERS—Continued 

[>50.00 pints/day] 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

IEF 

(L/kWh) 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

4 ....................................... 4 3.67 1,257 69 597 1,854 11.2 10.0 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.7—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 3: PORTABLE

DEHUMIDIFIERS

[>50.00 pints/day] 

TSL Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average LCC 

savings * +

(2022$) 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

(%) 

1,3 .................................................................................................................................... 1 $31 33 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 (4) 65 

3 (67) 79 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 (52) 74 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

+ Parentheses denote negative (¥) values. 

TABLE V.8—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 4: WHOLE-HOME DEHUMIDIFIERS

[≤8.0 cu ft case volume] 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

IEF 

(L/kWh) 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Baseline 1.77 $2,733 $144 $1,441 $4,174 .................... 12.0 

1,2 .................................... 1 2.09 2,876 123 1,235 4,110 6.9 12.0 

3 ....................................... 2 2.22 2,907 117 1,170 4,077 6.4 12.0 

4 ....................................... 3 2.39 2,978 110 1,099 4,077 7.2 12.0 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.9—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 4: WHOLEHOME DEHUMIDIFIERS

[≤8.0 cu ft case volume] 

TSL Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average LCC 

savings *

(2022$) 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

(%) 

1,2 .................................................................................................................................... 1 $63 4 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 56 8 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 12 56 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76548 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.10—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 5: WHOLE-HOME DEHUMIDIFIERS

[>8.0 cu ft case volume] 

TSL Efficiency 

level 

IEF 

(L/kWh) 

Average costs 

(2022$) Simple 

payback 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed (years) 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Baseline 2.41 $2,734 $115 $1,166 $3,901 .................... 12.0 

1 ....................................... 1 2.70 2,797 104 1,053 3,850 5.6 12.0 

2 ....................................... 2 3.30 2,816 87 882 3,698 2.9 12.0 

3 ....................................... 3 3.81 2,954 77 778 3,731 5.7 12.0 

4 ....................................... 4 4.17 3,077 71 720 3,796 7.8 12.0 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V.11—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 5: WHOLEHOME DEHUMIDIFIERS

[>8.0 cu ft case volume] 

TSL Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average LCC 

savings *

(2022$) 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

(%) 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 1 $53 19 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 179 7 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 146 38 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 81 53 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In the consumer subgroup analysis, 

DOE estimated the impact of the 

considered TSLs on low-income 

households and senior-only households. 

Table V.12 through Table V.16 

compares the average LCC savings and 

PBP at each efficiency level for the 

consumer subgroups with similar 

metrics for the entire consumer sample 

for each product class. In most cases, 

the average LCC savings and PBP for 

low-income households and senior-only 

households at the considered efficiency 

levels are not substantially different 

from the average for all households. 

Chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD presents 

the complete LCC and PBP results for 

the subgroups. 

TABLE V.12—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; PRODUCT

CLASS 1: PORTABLE DEHUMIDIFIERS

[≤25.00 pints/day] 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

Average LCC Savings (2022$): * 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ $0 $0 $0 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ $38 $43 $46 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ $34 $39 $42 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ ($37) ($22) ($9) 

Payback Period (years): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 1.2 1.1 1.0 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 1.1 1.0 0.9 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 1.1 1.0 0.9 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 7.6 6.9 6.3 

Consumers with Net Benefit (%): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 0% 0% 0% 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 23% 24% 24% 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 83% 89% 88% 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 27% 30% 35% 

Consumers with Net Cost (%): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 0% 0% 0% 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 1% 0% 1% 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 7% 2% 3% 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 73% 70% 65% 

* Parentheses denote negative (¥) values. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76549 

TABLE V.13—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; PRODUCT

CLASS 2: PORTABLE DEHUMIDIFIERS

[25.01–50.00 pints/day] 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

Average LCC Savings (2022$): * 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ $0 $0 $0 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ $0 $0 $0 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ $65 $74 $81 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ ($21) ($2) $14 

Payback Period (years): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 0.9 0.8 0.7 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 1.0 0.9 0.8 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 0.7 0.7 0.6 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 6.4 5.8 5.3 

Consumers with Net Benefit (%): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 0% 0% 0% 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 0% 0% 0% 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 87% 87% 87% 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 32% 35% 40% 

Consumers with Net Cost (%): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 0% 0% 0% 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 0% 0% 0% 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 0% 0% 0% 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 68% 65% 60% 

* Parentheses denote negative (¥) values. 

TABLE V.14—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; PRODUCT

CLASS 3: PORTABLE DEHUMIDIFIERS

[>50.00 pints/day] 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

Average LCC Savings (2022$): * 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ $21 $25 $31 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ ($19) ($13) ($4) 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ $21 $25 $31 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ ($76) ($66) ($52) 

Payback Period (years): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 5.6 5.3 4.8 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 10.0 9.5 8.7 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 5.6 5.3 4.8 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 12.9 12.3 11.2 

Consumers with Net Benefit (%): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 53% 51% 53% 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 29% 29% 35% 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 53% 51% 53% 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 17% 20% 26% 

Consumers with Net Cost (%): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 33% 34% 33% 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 71% 71% 65% 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 33% 34% 33% 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 83% 80% 74% 

* Parentheses denote negative (¥) values. 

TABLE V.15—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; PRODUCT

CLASS 4: WHOLE-HOME DEHUMIDIFIERS

[≤8.0 cu ft case volume] 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

Average LCC Savings (2022$): * 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ $99 $70 $63 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ $99 $70 $63 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ $76 $60 $56 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ $37 $14 $12 

Payback Period (years): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 4.8 6.8 6.9 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 4.8 6.8 6.9 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76550 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.15—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; PRODUCT

CLASS 4: WHOLE-HOME DEHUMIDIFIERS—Continued 

[≤8.0 cu ft case volume] 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 4.4 6.3 6.4 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 4.9 7.1 7.2 

Consumers with Net Benefit (%): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 5% 4% 4% 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 5% 4% 4% 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 15% 14% 14% 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 48% 39% 40% 

Consumers with Net Cost (%): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 3% 4% 4% 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 3% 4% 4% 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 5% 8% 8% 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 40% 58% 56% 

* Parentheses denote negative (¥) values. 

TABLE V.16—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; PRODUCT

CLASS 5: WHOLE-HOME DEHUMIDIFIERS

[>8.0 cu ft case volume] 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

Average LCC Savings (2022$): * 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ $64 $51 $53 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ $178 $179 $179 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ $187 $147 $146 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ $163 $82 $81 

Payback Period (years): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 3.8 5.5 5.6 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 2.0 2.9 2.9 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 3.9 5.6 5.7 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 5.3 7.6 7.8 

Consumers with Net Benefit (%): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 36% 33% 34% 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 89% 95% 93% 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 66% 62% 62% 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 55% 47% 47% 

Consumers with Net Cost (%): 

TSL 1 ........................................................................................................................ 13% 20% 19% 

TSL 2 ........................................................................................................................ 3% 5% 7% 

TSL 3 ........................................................................................................................ 26% 38% 38% 

TSL 4 ........................................................................................................................ 37% 53% 53% 

* Parentheses denote negative (¥) values. 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section III.E.2 EPCA 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that an energy conservation standard is 

economically justified if the increased 

purchase cost for a product that meets 

the standard is less than three times the 

value of the first-year energy savings 

resulting from the standard. In 

calculating a rebuttable presumption 

payback period for each of the 

considered TSLs, DOE used discrete 

values, and, as required by EPCA, based 

the energy use calculation on the DOE 

test procedure for dehumidifiers. In 

contrast, the PBPs presented in section 

V.B.1.a were calculated using average 

values derived from distributions that 

reflect the range of energy use in the 

field. 

Table V.17 presents the rebuttablepresumption payback periods for the 

considered TSLs for dehumidifiers. 

While DOE examined the rebuttablepresumption criterion, it considered 

whether the standard levels considered 

for the NOPR are economically justified 

through a more detailed analysis of the 

economic impacts of those levels, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), 

that considers the full range of impacts 

to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, 

and environment. The results of that 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

definitively evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level, thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic justification. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76551 

58The gross margin percentage of 29 percent is 

based on a manufacturer markup of 1.40. 

TABLE V.17—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS

Product class 

Efficiency level 

1 2 3 4 5 

years 

Product Class 1: Portable Dehumidifiers ≤25.00 Pints/Day .................... 1.2 1.1 1.2 6.6 7.3 

Product Class 2: Portable Dehumidifiers 25.01–50.00 Pints/Day ........... 0.9 1.0 0.8 5.4 6.1 

Product Class 3: Portable Dehumidifiers >50.00 Pints/Day .................... 5.9 10.7 11.5 10.7 ....................

Product Class 4: Whole-Home Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 cu ft Case Volume .. 4.8 4.8 5.6 .................... ....................

Product Class 5: Whole-Home Dehumidifiers >8.0 cu ft Case Volume 5.2 2.7 4.7 6.5 ....................

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of dehumidifiers. The 

following section describes the expected 

impacts on manufacturers at each 

considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD explains the analysis in 

further detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

In this section, DOE provides GRIM 

results from the analysis, which 

examines changes in the industry that 

would result from a standard. The 

following tables summarize the 

estimated financial impacts (represented 

by changes in INPV) of potential 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of dehumidifiers, as 

well as the conversion costs that DOE 

estimates manufacturers of 

dehumidifiers would incur at each TSL. 

The impact of potential amended 

energy conservation standards were 

analyzed under two scenarios: (1) the 

preservation of gross margin percentage; 

and (2) the preservation of operating 

profit, as discussed in section IV.J.2.d of 

this document. The preservation of 

gross margin percentages applies a 

‘‘gross margin percentage’’ of 29 percent 

for all product classes across all 

efficiency levels.58 This scenario 

assumes that a manufacturer’s per-unit 

dollar profit would increase as MPCs 

increase in the standards cases and 

represents the upper-bound to industry 

profitability under potential amended 

energy conservation standards. 

The preservation of operating profit 

scenario reflects manufacturers’ 

concerns about their inability to 

maintain margins as MPCs increase to 

reach more-stringent efficiency levels. 

In this scenario, while manufacturers 

make the necessary investments 

required to convert their facilities to 

produce compliant equipment, 

operating profit does not change in 

absolute dollars and decreases as a 

percentage of revenue. The preservation 

of operating profit scenario results in 

the lower bound to impacts of potential 

amended standards on industry. 

Each of the modeled scenarios results 

in a unique set of cash flows and 

corresponding INPV for each TSL. INPV 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(2023–2057). The ‘‘change in INPV’’ 

results refer to the difference in industry 

value between the no-new-standards 

case and standards case at each TSL. To 

provide perspective on the short-run 

cash flow impact, DOE includes a 

comparison of free cash flow between 

the no-new-standards case and the 

standards case at each TSL in the year 

before amended standards would take 

effect. This figure provides an 

understanding of the magnitude of the 

required conversion costs relative to the 

cash flow generated by the industry in 

the no-new-standards case. 

Conversion costs are one-time 

investments for manufacturers to bring 

their manufacturing facilities and 

product designs into compliance with 

potential amended standards. As 

described in section IV.J.2.c of this 

document, conversion cost investments 

occur between the year of publication of 

the final rule and the year by which 

manufacturers must comply with the 

new standard. The conversion costs can 

have a significant impact on the shortterm cash flow on the industry and 

generally result in lower free cash flow 

in the period between the publication of 

the final rule and the compliance date 

of potential amended standards. 

Conversion costs are independent of the 

manufacturer markup scenarios and are 

not presented as a range in this analysis. 

TABLE V.18—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS DEHUMIDIFIER INDUSTRY RESULTS

Unit 

No-newstandards case 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

INPV ...................................................................... 2022$ Million .......... 158.3 157.8 to 158.0 .. 157.4 to 158.1 .. 153.1 to 155.0 .. 73.0 to 121.6 

Change in INPV .................................................... % ............................ ........................ (0.3) to (0.2) ..... (0.6) to (0.2) ..... (3.3) to (2.1) ..... (53.9) to (23.2) 

Free Cash Flow (2027) ......................................... 2022$ Million .......... 12.6 12.4 .................. 12.4 .................. 10.3 .................. (18.2) 

Change in Free Cash Flow (2027) ....................... % ............................ ........................ (1.5) .................. (2.2) .................. (18.4) ................ (244.3) 

Product Conversion Costs .................................... 2022$ Million .......... ........................ 0.6 .................... 0.8 .................... 6.9 .................... 20.9 

Capital Conversion Costs ...................................... 2022$ Million .......... ........................ 0.0 .................... 0.0 .................... 0.0 .................... 53.1 

Conversion Costs .................................................. 2022$ Million .......... - 0.6 .................... 0.8 .................... 6.9 .................... 73.9 

At TSL 4, the standard represents the 

max-tech efficiency levels for all 

product classes. The change in INPV is 

expected to range from ¥53.9 to ¥23.2 

percent. At this level, free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by 244.3 percent 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $12.6 million in the year 2027, 

the year before the standards year. 

Currently, less than 1 percent of 

domestic dehumidifier shipments meet 

the efficiencies required at TSL 4. 

At max-tech, all product classes 

would require the most efficient 

compressor observed in teardown 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76552 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

models, ECM blower fan with associated 

variable-speed driver, controls with less 

inactive mode power consumption and 

the largest heat exchangers observed in 

teardown models in each product class. 

Increasing heat exchanger surface area 

would necessitate notable changes to 

the chassis size of both portable and 

whole-home units as most dehumidifier 

designs cannot accommodate a larger 

heat exchanger within the existing 

cabinet structure. For the portable 

dehumidifier classes, which together 

account for approximately 98 percent of 

industry shipments, almost all 

manufacturers would need to make 

significant investments to adjust 

equipment, molding, and tooling to 

accommodate new dimensions across 

their entire product portfolio. None of 

the 15 portable dehumidifier OEMs 

currently offer any models that meet the 

max-tech efficiencies required. Product 

conversion costs at this level are 

significant as manufacturers work to 

completely redesign all existing models 

and develop new chassis designs to 

incorporate larger heat exchangers and 

more efficient components. DOE 

estimates capital conversion costs of 

$53.1 million and product conversion 

costs of $20.9 million. Conversion costs 

total $73.9 million. 

Compared to the market for portable 

dehumidifiers, the whole-home 

dehumidifier market is low-volume and 

relatively concentrated. Whole-home 

dehumidifiers account for 

approximately 2 percent of total 

industry shipments. DOE identified 

three OEMs producing whole-home 

dehumidifiers for the U.S. market. Of 

the two whole-home product classes, 

whole-home dehumidifiers ≤8.0 cu. ft. 

(Product Class 4) account for 

approximately 85 percent of wholehome dehumidifier shipments. Of the 

three whole-home OEMs identified, 

only one OEM currently offers a Product 

Class 4 model that meets the max-tech 

level. The remaining two OEMs would 

need to dedicate significant engineering 

resources to redesign their entire 

product portfolio to include larger heat 

exchangers, which would necessitate a 

change in dimensions and new chassis 

design. One of the OEMs without any 

models that meet max-tech is a small, 

domestic business with a significant 

market share of Product Class 4 

shipments. For the other whole-home 

product class, only one OEM currently 

offers whole-home dehumidifiers >8.0 

cu. ft. (Product Class 5). This OEM does 

not currently offer any models that meet 

the max-tech efficiency required. Given 

the limited number of whole-home 

OEMs, the limited number of models 

currently available that meet the maxtech efficiency levels, and the extent of 

the redesign required for the OEMs 

without any max-tech product offerings, 

it is possible that the 3-year period 

between the announcement of the final 

rule and the compliance date of the 

amended energy conservation standard 

might be insufficient to design, test, and 

manufacture the necessary number of 

products to meet consumer demand. 

At TSL 4, the large conversion costs 

result in a free cash flow dropping 

below zero in the years before the 

standards year. The negative free cash 

flow calculation indicates 

manufacturers may need to access cash 

reserves or outside capital to finance 

conversion efforts. 

At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all dehumidifiers is 

expected to increase by 52.7 percent 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

shipment-weighted average MPC for all 

dehumidifiers in 2028. Given the 

projected increase in production costs, 

DOE expects an estimated 23.5 percent 

drop in shipments in the year the 

standard takes effect relative to the nonew-standards case. In the preservation 

of gross margin percentage scenario, the 

increase in cashflow from the higher 

MSP is outweighed by the $73.9 million 

in conversion costs and drop in annual 

shipments, causing a significant 

negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under 

this scenario. Under the preservation of 

operating profit scenario, the 

manufacturer markup decreases in 2029, 

the year after the analyzed compliance 

year. This reduction in the manufacturer 

markup, the $73.9 million in conversion 

costs incurred by manufacturers, and 

the drop in annual shipments cause a 

significant decrease in INPV at TSL 4 

under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario. 

At TSL 3, the standard represents an 

intermediate TSL that maintains 

positive average LCC savings for all 

products while increasing stringency for 

Product Classes 1, 2, 4, and 5. The 

change in INPV is expected to range 

from ¥3.3 to ¥2.1 percent. At this 

level, free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by 18.4 percent compared to 

the no-new-standards case value of 

$12.6 million in the year 2027, the year 

before the standards year. Currently, 

approximately 3 percent of domestic 

dehumidifier shipments meet the 

efficiencies required at TSL 3. 

For the portable dehumidifier classes 

≤50.00 pints/day (Product Class 1 and 

Product Class 2), TSL 3 corresponds to 

EL3. For portable dehumidifiers >50 

pints/day, TSL 3 corresponds to EL1. 

For whole home dehumidifiers ≤8.0 cu. 

ft., TSL 3 corresponds to EL2. For whole 

home dehumidifiers >8.0 cu. ft., TSL 3 

corresponds to EL3. At this level, DOE 

expects that all product classes would 

incorporate a higher efficiency 

compressor compared to the current 

baseline. For the whole-home 

dehumidifier classes, the analyzed 

design options also included the 

addition of an ECM blower and a larger 

heat exchanger as compared to baseline 

product offerings but to a lesser extent 

than what was analyzed at max-tech. At 

this level, DOE does not expect 

manufacturers of portable dehumidifiers 

to adopt new or larger chassis designs. 

As such, DOE does not expect industry 

would incur capital conversion costs 

since portable OEMs can likely achieve 

TSL 3 efficiencies without changes to 

the heat exchanger and chassis design. 

Portable dehumidifiers 25.01–50.00 

pints/day (Product Class 2) accounts for 

approximately 73 percent of industry 

shipments. Of the 15 portable 

dehumidifier OEMs, around two OEMs 

currently offer Product Class 2 models 

that meet the efficiency required by TSL 

3. Product conversion costs may be 

necessary for developing, qualifying, 

sourcing, and testing more efficient 

compressors. For whole-home 

dehumidifiers, DOE expects some 

manufacturers would need to adopt new 

or larger chassis designs to 

accommodate larger heat exchangers but 

not to the extent required at max-tech. 

For whole-home designs, DOE expects 

that the size differences would not 

necessitate capital investment since 

existing machinery could likely still be 

used. Of the three whole-home OEMs, 

two OEMs currently offer Product Class 

4 models that meet the efficiency 

required. As with TSL 4, whole-home 

manufacturers would likely need to 

completely redesign non-compliant 

models. However, approximately 60 

percent of basic model listings (around 

32 unique basic models) already meet 

the efficiency level required. DOE 

estimates total conversion costs of $6.9 

million, all of which are product 

conversion costs. 

At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all dehumidifiers is 

expected to increase by 1.6 percent 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

shipment-weighted average MPC for all 

dehumidifiers in 2028. Given the 

projected increase in production costs, 

DOE does not expect a notable drop in 

shipments in the year the standard takes 

effect relative to the no-new-standards 

case. In the preservation of gross margin 

percentage scenario, the slight increase 

in cashflow from the higher MSP is 

outweighed by the $6.9 million in 

conversion costs, causing a slightly 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76553 

59U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of 

Manufactures. ‘‘Summary Statistics for Industry 

Groups and Industries in the U.S. (2021).’’ 

Available at www.census.gov/data/tables/timeseries/econ/asm/2018-2021-asm.html (last accessed 

March 4, 2023). 

60U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs 

for Employee Compensation—September 2022. 

December 15, 2022. Available at www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf (last accessed March 4, 

2023). 

negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under 

this scenario. Under the preservation of 

operating profit scenario, the 

manufacturer markup decreases in 2029, 

the year after the analyzed compliance 

year. This reduction in the manufacturer 

markup and the $6.9 million in 

conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a slightly negative 

change in INPV at TSL 3 under the 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario. 

At TSL 2, the standard represents 

efficiency levels consistent with 

ENERGY STAR requirements for 

dehumidifiers. The change in INPV is 

expected to range from ¥0.9 to ¥0.2 

percent. At this level, free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by 2.2 percent 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $12.6 million in the year 2027, 

the year before the standards year. 

Currently, approximately 89 percent of 

domestic dehumidifier shipments meet 

the efficiencies required at TSL 2. 

For all product classes, except for 

whole-home dehumidifiers ≤8.0 cu. ft. 

(Product Class 4), TSL 2 corresponds to 

EL2. For Product Class 4, TSL 2 

corresponds to EL1. The design options 

analyzed for most product classes 

include incorporating incrementally 

more efficient compressors, similar to 

TSL 3. For Product Class 5, DOE also 

expects that manufacturers would need 

to increase the heat exchanger beyond 

what would be required at baseline. At 

this level, DOE estimates that most 

manufacturers can achieve TSL 2 

efficiencies with relatively simple 

component changes. For the largest 

portable dehumidifier class (Product 

Class 2), all 15 OEMs have models that 

meet the efficiency level required. For 

the largest whole-home dehumidifier 

class (Product Class 4), all three OEMs 

have models that meet the efficiency 

level required. Product conversion costs 

may be necessary for developing, 

qualifying, sourcing, and testing more 

efficient compressors. DOE estimates 

total conversion costs of $0.8 million, 

all of which are product conversion 

costs. 

At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all dehumidifiers is 

expected to increase by 0.4 percent 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

shipment-weighted average MPC for all 

dehumidifiers in 2028. Given the 

projected increase in production costs, 

DOE does not expect a notable drop in 

shipments in the year the standard takes 

effect relative to the no-new-standards 

case. In the preservation of gross margin 

percentage scenario, the slight increase 

in cashflow from the higher MSP is 

outweighed by the $0.8 million in 

conversion costs, causing a slightly 

negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under 

this scenario. Under the preservation of 

operating profit scenario, the 

manufacturer markup decreases in 2029, 

the year after the analyzed compliance 

year. This reduction in the manufacturer 

markup and the $0.8 million in 

conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a slightly negative 

change in INPV at TSL 2 under the 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario. 

At TSL 1, the standard represents the 

lowest analyzed efficiency level above 

baseline for all product classes (EL1). 

The change in INPV is expected to range 

from ¥0.4 to ¥0.1 percent. At this 

level, free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by 1.5 percent compared to the 

no-new-standards case value of $12.6 

million in the year 2027, the year before 

the standards year. Currently, 

approximately 99 percent of domestic 

dehumidifier shipments meet the 

efficiencies required at TSL 1. 

For all product classes, TSL 1 

corresponds to EL1. At TSL 1, DOE 

analyzed implementing various design 

options for the range of directly 

analyzed product classes. corresponds 

to EL2. For whole-home dehumidifiers 

under 8.0 cubic feet, TSL 2 corresponds 

to EL1. The design options analyzed 

included implementing incrementally 

more efficient compressors compared to 

the current baseline, and, for whole 

home dehumidifiers >8.0 cu. ft. 

(Product Class 5), the analyzed design 

options also included implementing 

larger heat exchangers as compared to 

the current baseline. At this level, there 

are no capital conversion costs since 

most manufacturers can achieve TSL 1 

efficiencies with relatively simple 

component changes. Product conversion 

costs may be necessary for developing, 

qualifying, sourcing, and testing more 

efficient components. DOE estimates 

total conversion costs of $0.6 million, 

all of which is product conversion cost. 

At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all dehumidifiers is 

expected to increase by 0.1 percent 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

shipment-weighted average MPC for all 

dehumidifiers in 2028. Given the 

relatively small increase in production 

costs, DOE does not project a notable 

drop in shipments in the year the 

standard takes effect. In the preservation 

of gross margin percentage scenario, the 

minor increase in cashflow from the 

higher MSP is slightly outweighed by 

the $0.6 million in conversion costs, 

causing a slightly negative change in 

INPV at TSL 1 under this scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments. 

In this scenario, the manufacturer 

markup decreases in 2029, the year after 

the analyzed compliance year. This 

reduction in the manufacturer markup 

and the $0.6 million in conversion costs 

incurred by manufacturers cause a 

slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 

1 under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario. 

DOE seeks comments, information, 

and data on the capital conversion costs 

and product conversion costs estimated 

for each TSL. 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

To quantitatively assess the potential 

impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on direct 

employment in the dehumidifier 

industry, DOE used the GRIM to 

estimate the domestic labor 

expenditures and number of direct 

employees in the no-new-standards case 

and in each of the standards cases 

during the analysis period. DOE 

calculated these values using statistical 

data from the 2021 ASM,59 BLS 

employee compensation data,60 results 

of the engineering analysis, and 

manufacturer interviews. 

Labor expenditures related to product 

manufacturing depend on the labor 

intensity of the product, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages 

remain fixed in real terms over time. 

The total labor expenditures in each 

year are calculated by multiplying the 

total MPCs by the labor percentage of 

MPCs. The total labor expenditures in 

the GRIM were then converted to total 

production employment levels by 

dividing production labor expenditures 

by the average fully burdened wage 

multiplied by the average number of 

hours worked per year per production 

worker. To do this, DOE relied on the 

ASM inputs: Production Workers 

Annual Wages, Production Workers 

Annual Hours, Production Workers for 

Pay Period, and Number of Employees. 

DOE also relied on the BLS employee 

compensation data to determine the 

fully burdened wage ratio. The fully 

burdened wage ratio factors in paid 

leave, supplemental pay, insurance, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76554 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

retirement and savings, and legally 

required benefits. 

The number of production employees 

is then multiplied by the U.S. labor 

percentage to convert total production 

employment to total domestic 

production employment. The U.S. labor 

percentage represents the industry 

fraction of domestic manufacturing 

production capacity for the covered 

products. This value is derived from 

manufacturer interviews, equipment 

database analysis, and publicly 

available information. The U.S. labor 

percentage varies by product class. 

Nearly all portable units are 

manufactured outside of the United 

States. Comparatively, DOE estimates 

that 80 percent of whole-home units are 

manufactured in the United States. 

Overall, DOE estimates that 2 percent of 

all covered dehumidifiers units are 

manufactured domestically. 

The domestic production employees 

estimate covers production line 

workers, including line supervisors, 

who are directly involved in fabricating 

and assembling products within the 

OEM facility. Workers performing 

services that are closely associated with 

production operations, such as materials 

handling tasks using forklifts, are also 

included as production labor. DOE’s 

estimates only account for production 

workers who manufacture the specific 

equipment covered by this proposed 

rulemaking. 

Non-production workers account for 

the remainder of the direct employment 

figure. The non-production employees 

estimate covers domestic workers who 

are not directly involved in the 

production process, such as sales, 

engineering, human resources, and 

management. Using the amount of 

domestic production workers calculated 

above, non-production domestic 

employees are extrapolated by 

multiplying the ratio of non-production 

workers in the industry compared to 

production employees. DOE assumes 

that this employee distribution ratio 

remains constant between the no-newstandards case and standards cases. 

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates in the 

absence of amended energy 

conservation standards there would be 

72 domestic production and nonproduction workers of dehumidifiers in 

2028. Table V.19 shows the range of the 

impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on U.S. 

manufacturing employment in 

dehumidifier industry. 

TABLE V.19—DIRECT EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS FOR DOMESTIC DEHUMIDIFIER MANUFACTURERS IN 2028 * 

No-newstandards 

case 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Direct Employment in 2028 (Production Workers + NonProduction Workers).72 72 ................... 72 ................... 72 ................... 64. 

Potential Changes in Direct Employment in 2028* ............ ........................ (53) to 0 ......... (53) to 0 ......... (53) to 0 ......... (53) to (8). 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses denote negative values. 

The direct employment impacts 

shown in Table V.19 represent the 

potential domestic employment changes 

that could result following the 

compliance date of amended energy 

conservation standards. The upper 

bound estimate corresponds to the 

change in the number of domestic 

workers that would result from 

amended energy conservation standards 

if manufacturers continued to produce 

the same scope of covered products 

within the United States after 

compliance takes effect. To establish a 

conservative lower bound, DOE assumes 

all manufacturers would shift 

production to foreign countries with 

lower costs of labor. At lower TSLs (i.e., 

TSL 1 through TSL 3), DOE believes the 

likelihood of changes in production 

location due to amended standards are 

low due to the relatively minor 

production line updates required. 

However, as amended standards 

increase in stringency and both the 

complexity and cost of production 

facility updates increases, 

manufacturers are more likely to revisit 

their production location decisions and/ 

or their make vs. buy decisions. 

Additional detail on the analysis of 

direct employment can be found in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

Additionally, the employment impacts 

discussed in this section are 

independent of the employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, which 

are documented in chapter 16 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

In interviews, some manufacturers 

expressed concern about efficiency 

levels that would require increasing the 

chassis and heat exchanger. These 

manufacturers asserted that since 

manufacturing larger units requires 

longer production and processing time, 

increasing chassis size could reduce 

their manufacturing capacity. 

Furthermore, manufacturers expressed 

concern that the 3-year compliance 

period would be insufficient to develop 

completely new, cost-optimized models 

across their entire product portfolio if 

chassis size changes are required. 

DOE notes that there could be 

technical resource constraints due to 

overlapping regulations, particularly for 

whole-home dehumidifier 

manufacturers. Whole-home 

dehumidifier manufacturers may face 

resource constraints should DOE set 

more stringent standards that 

necessitate the redesign of the majority 

of models given State (e.g., CARB) and 

potential Federal refrigerant regulations 

requiring low-GWP refrigerants over a 

similar compliance timeline. 

DOE seeks comment on whether 

manufacturers expect manufacturing 

capacity constraints or engineering 

resource constraints would limit 

product availability to consumers in the 

timeframe of the amended standard 

compliance date (2028). 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop industry cash-flow estimates 

may not capture the differential impacts 

among subgroups of manufacturers. 

Small manufacturers, niche players, or 

manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure that differs substantially from 

the industry average could be affected 

disproportionately. DOE investigated 

small businesses as a manufacturer 

subgroup that could be 

disproportionally impacted by energy 

conservation standards and could merit 

additional analysis. DOE did not 

identify any other adversely impacted 

manufacturer subgroups for this 

proposed rulemaking based on the 

results of the industry characterization. 

DOE analyzes the impacts on small 

businesses in a separate analysis in 

section VI.B of this document as part of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. In 

summary, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) defines a ‘‘small 

business’’ as having 1,500 or employees 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76555 

or less for North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) 335210, 

‘‘Small Electrical Appliance 

Manufacturing’’ and 1,250 employees or 

less for NAICS 333415, ‘‘Air 

Conditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ For a discussion of the 

impacts on the small business 

manufacturer subgroup, see the 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in 

section VI.B of this document and 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden involves looking at the 

cumulative impact of multiple DOE 

standards and the product-specific 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies that affect the manufacturers of 

a covered product or equipment. While 

any one regulation may not impose a 

significant burden on manufacturers, 

the combined effects of several existing 

or impending regulations may have 

serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing products. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis 

of cumulative regulatory burden as part 

of its rulemakings pertaining to 

appliance efficiency. 

DOE evaluates product-specific 

regulations that will take effect 

approximately three years before or after 

the estimated 2028 compliance date of 

any amended energy conservation 

standards for dehumidifiers. This 

information is presented in Table V.20. 

TABLE V.20—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS AFFECTING DEHUMIDIFIER ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS

Federal energy conservation standard Number of 

OEMs * 

Number of 

OEMs affected 

by today’s 

rule ** 

Approx. standards 

compliance year 

Industry 

conversion costs 

(millions $) 

Industry 

conversion 

costs/product 

revenue *** 

(%) 

Consumer Furnaces † 87 FR 40590 (July 7, 

2022).

15 3 2029 .......................... $150.6 (2020$) 1.4 

Consumer Clothes Dryers,† 87 FR 51734 (August 23, 2022).15 3 2027 .......................... $149.7 (2020$) 1.8 

Microwave Ovens 88 FR 39912 (June 20, 2023) 18 1 2026 .......................... $46.1 (2021$) 0.7 

Consumer Conventional Cooking Products 88 

FR 6818 † (February 1, 2023).

34 1 2027 .......................... $183.4 (2021$) 1.2 

Residential Clothes Washers † 88 FR 13520 

(March 3, 2023).

19 3 2027 .......................... $690.8 (2021$) 5.2 

Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers † 88 FR 12452 (February 27, 2023).49 3 2027 .......................... $1,323.6 (2021$) 3.8 

Room Air Conditioners 88 FR 34298 (May 26, 

2023).

8 4 2026 .......................... $24.8 (2021$) 0.4 

Consumer Air Cleaners ‡ 88 FR 21752 (April 11, 

2023).

43 2 2024 and 2026 ‡ ........ $57.3 (2021$) 1.3 

Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products † 88 FR 

19382 (March 31, 2023).

38 3 2029 .......................... $126.9 (2021$) 3.1 

Dishwashers † 88 FR 32514 (May 19, 2023) ...... 22 3 2027 .......................... $125.6 (2021$) 2.1 

Consumer Water Heaters † 88 FR 49058 (July 

28, 2023).

22 3 2030 .......................... $228.1 (2022$) 1.3 

* This column presents the total number of OEMs identified in the energy conservation standard rule subject to cumulative regulatory burden. 

** This column presents the number of OEMs producing dehumidifiers that are also listed as OEMs in the identified energy conservation standard subject to cumulative regulatory burden. 

*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of product revenue during the conversion period. Industry conversion costs 

are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue 

from just the covered product/equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs are 

made and lasts from the publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the energy conservation standard. The conversion period 

typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on the rulemaking. 

† These rulemakings are at the NOPR stage, and all values are subject to change until finalized through publication of a final rule. 

‡ The Direct Final Rule for Consumer Air Cleaners adopts an amended standard in 2024 and a higher amended standard in 2026. The conversion costs are spread over a 3-year conversion period ending in 2025, with over 50 percent of the conversion costs occurring between 2024 and 

2025. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76556 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

61State of California Air Resource Board, 

‘‘Prohibitions on Use of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons 

in Stationary Refrigeration, Chillers, AerosolsPropellants, and Foam End-Uses Regulation.’’ 

Amendments effective January 1, 2022. 

ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/ 

2020/hfc2020/frorevised.pdf (last accessed March 4, 

2023). 62The final rule was issued on October 5, 2023 

and is pending publication in the Federal Register. 

A pre-publication version of the EPA final rule is 

available at: www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/ 

2023-10/technology-transitions-final-rule-2023-prepublication.pdf. Once published, the final rule will 

be available at: www.regulations.gov/docket/EPAHQ-OAR-2021-0643. 

63Although State regulations, such as CARB’s, 

required the use low-GWP refrigerants in California 

starting January 1, 2023, for portable dehumidifiers, 

DOE assumed the refrigerant transition costs would 

be incurred over the same time period as wholehome dehumidifiers (2023 to 2024) since 

manufacturers likely waited for EPA SNAP 

approval before investing in the transition to lowGWP refrigerants for dehumidifiers. 88 FR 26382. 

64Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, prepared by RTI International, 

‘‘Global Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Projections & Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis: 

Methodology Documentation’’ (2019). Available at 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/ 

documents/nonco2_methodology_report.pdf. 

65U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/ 

A4/a-4.pdf. 

DOE requests information regarding 

the impact of cumulative regulatory 

burden on manufacturers of 

dehumidifiers associated with multiple 

DOE standards or product-specific 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies. 

Refrigerant Regulations 

DOE evaluated the potential impacts 

of State and Federal refrigerant 

regulations, such as CARB’s rulemaking 

prohibiting the use of refrigerants with 

a GWP of 750 or greater starting January 

1, 2023 for self-contained, residential 

dehumidifiers and starting January 1, 

2025 for whole-home dehumidifiers 61

and EPA’s final rule issued on October 

5, 2023, which restricts the use of HFCs 

that have a GWP of 700 or greater for 

residential dehumidifiers beginning 

January 1, 2025.62 Based on market 

research and information from 

manufacturer interviews, DOE expects 

that dehumidifier manufacturers will 

transition to flammable refrigerants (e.g., 

R–32) in response to refrigerant GWP 

restrictions. DOE understands that 

switching from non-flammable to 

flammable refrigerants requires time and 

investment to redesign dehumidifiers 

and upgrade production facilities to 

accommodate the additional structural 

and safety precautions required. DOE 

tentatively expects manufacturers will 

need to transition to an A2L refrigerant 

to comply with upcoming refrigerant 

regulations, prior to the expected 2028 

compliance date of any potential energy 

conservation standards. 

Investments required to transition to 

flammable refrigerants in response to 

State regulations or EPA’s final rule, 

necessitates a level of investment 

beyond typical annual R&D and capital 

expenditures. DOE considers the cost 

associated with the refrigerant transition 

in its GRIM to be independent of DOE 

actions related to any amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE accounted 

for the costs associated with redesigning 

dehumidifiers to make use of flammable 

refrigerants and retrofitting production 

facilities to accommodate flammable 

refrigerants in the GRIM in the no-newstandards case and standards cases to 

reflect the cumulative regulatory burden 

from State and Federal refrigerant 

regulation.63 DOE relied on 

manufacturer feedback in confidential 

interviews and a report prepared for 

EPA 64 to estimate the industry 

refrigerant transition costs. Based on 

feedback, DOE assumed that the 

transition to low-GWP refrigerants 

would require industry to invest 

approximately $3.6 million in R&D and 

$7.1 million in capital expenditures 

(e.g., investments in new charging 

equipment, leak detection systems, etc.). 

DOE requests comments on the 

magnitude of costs associated with 

transitioning dehumidifier products and 

production facilities to accommodate 

low-GWP refrigerants that would be 

incurred between the publication of this 

NOPR and the proposed compliance 

date of amended standards. 

Quantification and categorization of 

these costs, such as engineering efforts, 

testing lab time, certification costs, and 

capital investments (e.g., new charging 

equipment), would enable DOE to refine 

its analysis. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

This section presents DOE’s estimates 

of the national energy savings and the 

NPV of consumer benefits that would 

result from each of the TSLs considered 

as potential amended standards. 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential amended 

standards for dehumidifiers, DOE 

compared their energy consumption 

under the no-new-standards case to 

their anticipated energy consumption 

under each TSL. The savings are 

measured over the entire lifetime of 

products purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the year of 

anticipated compliance with amended 

standards (2028–2057). Table V.21 

presents DOE’s projections of the 

national energy savings for each TSL 

considered for dehumidifiers. The 

savings were calculated using the 

approach described in section IV.H of 

this document. 

TABLE V.21—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

[2028–2057] 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

quads 

Primary energy ................................................................................................ 0.00 0.02 0.32 0.97 

FFC energy ...................................................................................................... 0.00 0.02 0.33 0.99 

OMB Circular A–4 65 requires 

agencies to present analytical results, 

including separate schedules of the 

monetized benefits and costs that show 

the type and timing of benefits and 

costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies 

to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of 

benefits and costs. For this proposed 

rulemaking, DOE undertook a 

sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather 

than 30 years, of product shipments. 

The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy 

for the timeline in EPCA for the review 

of certain energy conservation standards 

and potential revision of and 

compliance with such revised 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3

I I I 

I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76557 

66EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at 

least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain 

products, a 3-year period after any new standard is 

promulgated before compliance is required, except 

that in no case may any new standards be required 

within 6 years of the compliance date of the 

previous standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) While 

adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 

period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may 

undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year 

period and that the 3-year compliance date may 

yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis 

period may not be appropriate given the variability 

that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and 

the fact that for some products, the compliance 

period is 5 years rather than 3 years. 

67U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/ 

A4/a-4.pdf. 

standards.66 The review timeframe 

established in EPCA is generally not 

synchronized with the product lifetime, 

product manufacturing cycles, or other 

factors specific to dehumidifiers. Thus, 

such results are presented for 

informational purposes only and are not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology. The NES 

sensitivity analysis results based on a 9- 

year analytical period are presented in 

Table V.22. The impacts are counted 

over the lifetime of dehumidifiers 

purchased in 2028–2036. 

TABLE V.22—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

[2028–2036] 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

quads 

Primary energy ................................................................................................ 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.28 

FFC energy ...................................................................................................... 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.29 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from the 

TSLs considered for dehumidifiers. In 

accordance with OMB’s guidelines on 

regulatory analysis,67 DOE calculated 

NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent real discount rate. Table V.23 

shows the consumer NPV results with 

impacts counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2028–2057. 

TABLE V.23—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

[2028–2057] 

Discount rate 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

Billion 2022$ 

3 percent .......................................................................................................... 0.02 0.07 2.61 2.21 

7 percent .......................................................................................................... 0.01 0.03 1.26 0.50 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in Table V.24. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2028–2036. As 

mentioned previously, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and are not indicative of any 

change in DOE’s analytical methodology 

or decision criteria. 

TABLE V.24—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

(2028–2036) 

Discount rate 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

Billion 2022$ 

3 percent .......................................................................................................... 0.01 0.04 1.16 0.55 

7 percent .......................................................................................................... 0.00 0.02 0.71 0.09 

The previous results reflect the use of 

a default trend to estimate the change in 

price for dehumidifiers over the analysis 

period (see section IV.F.1 of this 

document). DOE also conducted a 

sensitivity analysis that considered one 

scenario with a lower rate of price 

decline than the reference case and one 

scenario with a higher rate of price 

decline than the reference case. The 

results of these alternative cases are 

presented in appendix 10C of the NOPR 

TSD. In the high-price-decline case, the 

NPV of consumer benefits is higher than 

in the default case. In the low-pricedecline case, the NPV of consumer 

benefits is lower than in the default 

case. 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

DOE estimates that that amended 

energy conservation standards for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 

I I I 
76558 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

dehumidifiers would reduce energy 

expenditures for consumers of those 

products, with the resulting net savings 

being redirected to other forms of 

economic activity. These expected shifts 

in spending and economic activity 

could affect the demand for labor. As 

described in section IV.N of this 

document, DOE used an input/output 

model of the U.S. economy to estimate 

indirect employment impacts of the 

TSLs that DOE considered. There are 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Therefore, DOE generated 

results for near-term timeframes (2028– 

2032), where these uncertainties are 

reduced. 

The results suggest that the proposed 

standards would be likely to have a 

negligible impact on the net demand for 

labor in the economy. The net change in 

jobs is so small that it would be 

imperceptible in national labor statistics 

and might be offset by other, 

unanticipated effects on employment. 

Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents 

detailed results regarding anticipated 

indirect employment impacts. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

As discussed in section IV.C.1.b of 

this document, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the standards proposed 

in this NOPR would not lessen the 

utility or performance of the 

dehumidifiers under consideration in 

this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these 

products currently offer units that meet 

or exceed the proposed standards. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE considered any lessening of 

competition that would be likely to 

result from new or amended standards. 

As discussed in section III.E.1.e of this 

document, the Attorney General 

determines the impact, if any, of any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard, and transmits 

such determination in writing to the 

Secretary, together with an analysis of 

the nature and extent of such impact. To 

assist the Attorney General in making 

this determination, DOE has provided 

DOJ with copies of this NOPR and the 

accompanying TSD for review. DOE will 

consider DOJ’s comments on the 

proposed rule in determining whether 

to proceed to a final rule. DOE will 

publish and respond to DOJ’s comments 

in that document. DOE invites comment 

from the public regarding the 

competitive impacts that are likely to 

result from this proposed rule. In 

addition, stakeholders may also provide 

comments separately to DOJ regarding 

these potential impacts. See the 

ADDRESSES section for information to 

send comments to DOJ. 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve 

Energy 

Enhanced energy efficiency, where 

economically justified, improves the 

Nation’s energy security, strengthens the 

economy, and reduces the 

environmental impacts (costs) of energy 

production. Reduced electricity demand 

due to energy conservation standards is 

also likely to reduce the cost of 

maintaining the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the 

NOPR TSD presents the estimated 

impacts on electricity generating 

capacity, relative to the no-newstandards case, for the TSLs that DOE 

considered in this rulemaking. 

Energy conservation resulting from 

potential energy conservation standards 

for dehumidifiers is expected to yield 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of certain air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table 

V.25 provides DOE’s estimate of 

cumulative emissions reductions 

expected to result from the TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking. The 

emissions were calculated using the 

multipliers discussed in section IV.K of 

this document. DOE reports annual 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.25—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS SHIPPED IN 2028–2057 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

Power Sector Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ................................................................................. 0.07 0.31 6.37 18.68 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.00 0.02 0.41 1.19 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.16 

NOX(thousand tons) ......................................................................................... 0.03 0.14 2.97 8.50 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.02 0.08 1.72 5.00 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................... 0.000 0.001 0.011 0.033 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ................................................................................. 0.01 0.03 0.57 1.69 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.59 2.51 51.53 153.02 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 

NOX (thousand tons) ....................................................................................... 0.10 0.43 8.84 26.25 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.10 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Total FFC Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ................................................................................. 0.08 0.34 6.94 20.36 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.60 2.53 51.94 154.20 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.17 

NOX (thousand tons) ....................................................................................... 0.14 0.57 11.81 34.74 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.02 0.09 1.76 5.10 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................... 0.000 0.001 0.012 0.034 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76559 

As part of the analysis for this 

rulemaking, DOE estimated monetary 

benefits likely to result from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 that DOE 

estimated for each of the considered 

TSLs for dehumidifiers. Section IV.L of 

this document discusses the SC–CO2

values that DOE used. Table V.26 

presents the value of CO2 emissions 

reduction at each TSL for each of the 

SC–CO2 cases. The time-series of annual 

values is presented for the proposed 

TSL in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.26—PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS SHIPPED IN 2028–2057 

TSL 

SC–CO2 case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

Billion 2022$ 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.05 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 0.08 0.32 0.50 0.98 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 0.22 0.92 1.43 2.79 

As discussed in section IV.L.2 of this 

document, DOE estimated the climate 

benefits likely to result from the 

reduced emissions of methane and N2O 

that DOE estimated for each of the 

considered TSLs for dehumidifiers. 

Table V.27 presents the value of the CH4

emissions reduction at each TSL, and 

Table V.28 presents the value of the N2O 

emissions reduction at each TSL. The 

time-series of annual values is presented 

for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.27—PRESENT VALUE OF METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS SHIPPED IN 2028–2057 

TSL 

SC–CH4 case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

Million 2022$ 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.31 0.88 1.21 2.33 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 1.28 3.65 5.04 9.66 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 26.43 75.40 104.13 200.00 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 74.88 219.14 304.41 579.67 

TABLE V.28—PRESENT VALUE OF NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS SHIPPED IN 2028–2057 

TSL 

SC–N2O case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

Million 2022$ 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.12 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 0.25 0.96 1.47 2.56 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 0.69 2.71 4.17 7.20 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the global and U.S. 

economy continues to evolve rapidly. 

DOE, together with other Federal 

agencies, will continue to review 

methodologies for estimating the 

monetary value of reductions in CO2

and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 

review will consider the comments on 

this subject that are part of the public 

record for this and other rulemakings, as 

well as other methodological 

assumptions and issues. DOE notes that 

the proposed standards would be 

economically justified even without 

inclusion of monetized benefits of 

reduced GHG emissions. 

DOE also estimated the monetary 

value of the health benefits associated 

with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76560 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

anticipated to result from the 

considered TSLs for dehumidifiers. The 

dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are 

discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. Table V.29 presents the 

present value for NOX emissions 

reduction for each TSL calculated using 

7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, 

and Table V.30 presents similar results 

for SO2 emissions reductions. The 

results in these tables reflect application 

of EPA’s low dollar-per-ton values, 

which DOE used to be conservative. The 

time-series of annual values is presented 

for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.29—PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS SHIPPED IN 2028–2057 

TSL 3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

Million 2022$ 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7.26 3.33 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 29.32 13.09 

3 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 610.43 270.11 

4 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,716.52 716.08 

TABLE V.30—PRESENT VALUE OF SO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS SHIPPED IN 2028–2057 

TSL 3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

Million 2022$ 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1.51 0.71 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6.11 2.78 

3 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 126.15 56.92 

4 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 352.00 149.67 

Not all the public health and 

environmental benefits from the 

reduction of greenhouse gases, NOX, 

and SO2 are captured in the values 

above, and additional unquantified 

benefits from the reductions of those 

pollutants as well as from the reduction 

of direct PM and other co-pollutants 

may be significant. DOE has not 

included monetary benefits of the 

reduction of Hg emissions because the 

amount of reduction is very small. 

7. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, may consider 

any other factors that the Secretary 

deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors 

were considered in this analysis. 

8. Summary of Economic Impacts 

Table V.31 presents the NPV values 

that result from adding the estimates of 

the potential economic benefits 

resulting from reduced GHG and NOX

and SO2 emissions to the NPV of 

consumer benefits calculated for each 

TSL considered in this rulemaking. The 

consumer benefits are domestic U.S. 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered products, and 

are measured for the lifetime of 

products shipped in 2028–2057. The 

climate benefits associated with reduced 

GHG emissions resulting from the 

adopted standards are global benefits, 

and are also calculated based on the 

lifetime of dehumidifiers shipped in 

2028–2057. 

TABLE V.31—CONSUMER NPV COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF CLIMATE BENEFITS AND HEALTH BENEFITS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Using 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$) 

5% Average SC–GHG case ............................................................................ 0.03 0.11 3.45 4.57 

3% Average SC–GHG case ............................................................................ 0.03 0.13 3.75 5.42 

2.5% Average SC–GHG case ......................................................................... 0.03 0.14 3.95 6.02 

3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case .................................................................. 0.04 0.16 4.53 7.65 

Using 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$) 

5% Average SC–GHG case ............................................................................ 0.01 0.05 1.69 1.66 

3% Average SC–GHG case ............................................................................ 0.02 0.07 1.99 2.50 

2.5% Average SC–GHG case ......................................................................... 0.02 0.08 2.19 3.10 

3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case .................................................................. 0.03 0.10 2.77 4.74 

C. Conclusion 

When considering new or amended 

energy conservation standards, the 

standards that DOE adopts for any type 

(or class) of covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens by, to the greatest extent 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76561 

68P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household 

Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic 

Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853–883. doi: 10.1111/ 

0034–6527.00354. 

69Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory. Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_

theory.pdf (last accessed February 22, 2023). 

practicable, considering the seven 

statutory factors discussed previously. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 

amended standard must also result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

For this NOPR, DOE considered the 

impacts of amended standards for 

dehumidifiers at each TSL, beginning 

with the maximum technologically 

feasible level, to determine whether that 

level was economically justified. Where 

the max-tech level was not justified, 

DOE then considered the next most 

efficient level and undertook the same 

evaluation until it reached the highest 

efficiency level that is both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

tables in this section present a summary 

of the results of DOE’s quantitative 

analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 

quantitative results presented in the 

tables, DOE also considers other 

burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification. These include 

the impacts on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers who may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard and impacts on employment. 

DOE also notes that the economics 

literature provides a wide-ranging 

discussion of how consumers trade off 

upfront costs and energy savings in the 

absence of government intervention. 

Much of this literature attempts to 

explain why consumers appear to 

undervalue energy efficiency 

improvements. There is evidence that 

consumers undervalue future energy 

savings as a result of (1) a lack of 

information, (2) a lack of sufficient 

salience of the long-term or aggregate 

benefits, (3) a lack of sufficient savings 

to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases, (4) excessive focus on the 

short term, in the form of inconsistent 

weighting of future energy cost savings 

relative to available returns on other 

investments, (5) computational or other 

difficulties associated with the 

evaluation of relevant tradeoffs, and (6) 

a divergence in incentives (for example, 

between renters and owners, or builders 

and purchasers). Having less than 

perfect foresight and a high degree of 

uncertainty about the future, consumers 

may trade off these types of investments 

at a higher than expected rate between 

current consumption and uncertain 

future energy cost savings. 

In DOE’s current regulatory analysis, 

potential changes in the benefits and 

costs of a regulation due to changes in 

consumer purchase decisions are 

included in two ways. First, if 

consumers forgo the purchase of a 

product in the standards case, this 

decreases sales for product 

manufacturers, and the impact on 

manufacturers attributed to lost revenue 

is included in the MIA. This approach 

includes changes to future shipments 

and INPV but does not include the 

forgone value to consumers who are no 

longer expected to purchase a 

dehumidifier in the standards case. 

Second, DOE accounts for energy 

savings attributable only to products 

actually used by consumers in the 

standards case; if a standard decreases 

the number of products purchased by 

consumers, this decreases the potential 

energy savings from an energy 

conservation standard. DOE provides 

estimates of shipments and changes in 

the volume of product purchases in 

chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD. However, 

DOE’s current analysis does not 

explicitly control for heterogeneity in 

consumer preferences, preferences 

across subcategories of products or 

specific features, or consumer price 

sensitivity variation according to 

household income.68

While DOE is not prepared at present 

to provide a fuller quantifiable 

framework for estimating the benefits 

and costs of changes in consumer 

purchase decisions due to an energy 

conservation standard, DOE is 

committed to developing a framework 

that can support empirical quantitative 

tools for improved assessment of the 

consumer welfare impacts of appliance 

standards. DOE has posted a paper that 

discusses the issue of consumer welfare 

impacts of appliance energy 

conservation standards, and potential 

enhancements to the methodology by 

which these impacts are defined and 

estimated in the regulatory process.69

DOE welcomes comments on how to 

more fully assess the potential impact of 

energy conservation standards on 

consumer choice and how to quantify 

this impact in its regulatory analysis in 

future rulemakings. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Dehumidifier Standards 

Table V.32 and Table V.33 summarize 

the quantitative impacts estimated for 

each TSL for dehumidifiers. The 

national impacts are measured over the 

lifetime of dehumidifiers purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

anticipated year of compliance with 

amended standards (2028–2057). The 

energy savings, emissions reductions, 

and value of emissions reductions refer 

to full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency 

levels contained in each TSL are 

described in section V.A of this 

document. 

TABLE V.32—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DEHUMIDIFIER TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings 

Quads .............................................................................................................. 0.00 0.02 0.33 0.99 

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (million metric tons) ................................................................................. 0.08 0.34 6.94 20.36 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.60 2.53 51.94 154.20 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.17 

NOX (thousand tons) ....................................................................................... 0.14 0.57 11.81 34.74 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ 0.02 0.09 1.76 5.10 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76562 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.32—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DEHUMIDIFIER TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ................................................................. 0.03 0.13 2.75 7.80 

Climate Benefits * ............................................................................................. 0.00 0.02 0.40 1.14 

Health Benefits ** ............................................................................................. 0.01 0.04 0.74 2.07 

Total Benefits † ................................................................................................ 0.05 0.19 3.89 11.01 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .......................................................... 0.02 0.06 0.14 5.59 

Consumer Net Benefits ................................................................................... 0.02 0.07 2.61 2.21 

Total Net Benefits ............................................................................................ 0.03 0.13 3.75 5.42 

Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ................................................................. 0.02 0.07 1.34 3.59 

Climate Benefits * ............................................................................................. 0.00 0.02 0.40 1.14 

Health Benefits ** ............................................................................................. 0.00 0.02 0.33 0.87 

Total Benefits † ................................................................................................ 0.03 0.10 2.07 5.59 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .......................................................... 0.01 0.03 0.08 3.09 

Consumer Net Benefits ................................................................................... 0.01 0.03 1.26 0.50 

Total Net Benefits ............................................................................................ 0.02 0.07 1.99 2.50 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with dehumidifiers shipped in 2028–2057. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028–2057. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC–CO2, SC–CH4 and SC–N2O. Together, these represent the global 

SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are 

shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses 

the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under 

Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent 

and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC–GHG 

point estimate and emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. 

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

TABLE V.33—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DEHUMIDIFIER TSLS: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 * TSL 2 * TSL 3 * TSL 4 * 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No-new-standards case INPV = 

$158.3) ..................................................................................... 157.8 to 158.0 157.4 to 158.1 153.1 to 155.0 73.0 to 121.6 

Industry NPV (% change) ............................................................ (0.3) to (0.2) (0.6) to (0.2) (3.3) to (2.1) (53.9) to (23.2) 

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$) 

PC 1: Portable Dehumidifiers ≤25.00 Pints/Day ......................... $0 $46 $42 ($9) 

PC 2: Portable Dehumidifiers 25.01–50.00 Pints/Day ................ $0 $0 $81 $14 

PC 3: Portable Dehumidifiers >50.00 Pints/Day ......................... $31 ($4) $31 ($52) 

PC 4: Whole-Home Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 cu. ft. Case Volume ..... $63 $63 $56 $12 

PC 5: Whole-Home Dehumidifiers >8.0 cu. ft. Case Volume ..... $53 $179 $146 $81 

Shipment-Weighted Average * ..................................................... $1 $13 $71 $7 

Consumer Simple PBP (years) 

PC 1: Portable Dehumidifiers ≤25.00 Pints/Day ......................... 1.0 0.9 0.9 6.3 

PC 2: Portable Dehumidifiers 25.01–50.00 Pints/Day ................ 0.7 0.8 0.6 5.3 

PC 3: Portable Dehumidifiers >50.00 Pints/Day ......................... 4.8 8.7 4.8 11.2 

PC 4: Whole-Home Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 cu. ft. Case Volume ..... 6.9 6.9 6.4 7.2 

PC 5: Whole-Home Dehumidifiers >8.0 cu. ft. Case Volume ..... 5.6 2.9 5.7 7.8 

Shipment-Weighted Average * ..................................................... 0.9 1.0 0.8 5.6 

Percent of Consumers That Experience a Net Cost 

PC 1: Portable Dehumidifiers ≤25.00 Pints/Day ......................... 0% 1% 3% 65% 

PC 2: Portable Dehumidifiers 25.01–50.00 Pints/Day ................ 0% 0% 0% 60% 

PC 3: Portable Dehumidifiers >50.00 Pints/Day ......................... 33% 65% 33% 74% 

PC 4: Whole-Home Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 cu. ft. Case Volume ..... 4% 4% 8% 56% 

PC 5: Whole-Home Dehumidifiers >8.0 cu. ft. Case Volume ..... 19% 7% 38% 53% 

Shipment-Weighted Average * ..................................................... 0% 1% 1% 61% 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2022. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76563 

70Current shipments estimates refer to the 2022 

shipments distribution in the no-new-standards 

case. See section IV.F.8 of this document for details 

on the energy efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case. 

DOE first considered TSL 4, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. At this TSL, all product classes 

would require the most efficient 

compressor found in DOE’s physical 

teardowns of commercially available 

models, an ECM blower fan with 

associated variable-speed driver, 

controls with lower inactive mode 

power consumption, and the largest 

heat exchangers observed from DOE’s 

physical teardowns of commercially 

available models in each product class. 

TSL 4 would save an estimated 0.99 

quads of energy, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 4, the 

NPV of consumer benefit would be 

$0.50 billion using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $2.21 billion using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 20.36 Mt of CO2, 5.10 

thousand tons of SO2, 34.74 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.03 tons of Hg, 154.20 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.17 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the climate benefits 

from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 4 is 

$1.14 billion. The estimated monetary 

value of the health benefits from 

reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 

4 is $0.87 billion using a 7-percent 

discount rate and $2.07 billion using a 

3-percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 4 is $2.50 billion. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated total 

NPV at TSL 4 is $5.42 billion. The 

estimated total NPV is provided for 

additional information, however DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a proposed standard level is 

economically justified. 

Portable dehumidifiers in the CCD 

range in capacity from 1.7 to 104.3 pints 

per day and account for 98 percent of 

the current dehumidifier shipments.70

Within the portable segment of the 

market, there are three product classes 

differentiated by capacity range. 

Portable dehumidifiers with capacities 

greater than 25.0 pints per day and less 

than or equal to 50.0 pints per day (PC 

2) have the largest market share 

accounting for approximately 73 percent 

of portable dehumidifier shipments. 

Portable dehumidifiers with capacities 

less than or equal to 25.0 pints per day 

(PC 1) account for approximately 26 

percent of portable dehumidifier 

shipments. Portable dehumidifiers with 

capacities greater than 50.0 pints per 

day (PC 3) account for the remaining 1 

percent of portable dehumidifier 

shipments. Whole-home dehumidifiers 

are categorized into two product classes 

based on case volume and correspond to 

2 percent of the total dehumidifier 

market. Whole-home units range in case 

volume between 1.7 cu. ft. and 9.5 cu. 

ft. Whole-home dehumidifiers with case 

volumes less than or equal to 8.0 cu. ft. 

(PC 4) account for 85 percent of wholehome dehumidifier shipments in 2022. 

For portable dehumidifiers at TSL 4, 

the average LCC impact is a savings of 

$14 for PC 2, a net cost of $9 for PC 1 

and $52 for PC 3. The simple payback 

period is 6.3 years for PC 1, 5.3 years 

for PC 2, and 11.2 years for PC 3. 

Notably, the simple payback period for 

PC 3 exceeds the expected average 

lifetime of 10 years for portable 

dehumidifiers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing a net LCC cost 

is 65 percent for PC 1, 60 percent for PC 

2, and 74 percent for PC 3. For wholehome dehumidifiers, the average LCC 

impact is a savings of $12 for PC 4 and 

$81 for PC 5. The simple payback is 7.2 

years for PC 4 and 7.8 years for PC 5. 

The fraction of consumers experiencing 

a net LCC cost is 56 percent for PC 4 and 

53 percent for PC 5. Weighted across the 

market share for all five product classes, 

a majority of dehumidifier consumers 

(61 percent) would experience a net 

cost. 

An analysis of RECS 2020 indicates 

that 97 percent of low-income 

households that own a dehumidifier 

own a portable unit. Assuming the lowincome sample has a similar market 

distribution in portable dehumidifier 

capacities as the national sample, DOE 

estimates that approximately 25 percent 

of low-income dehumidifier consumers 

purchase units in PC 1 and 71 percent 

in PC 2. At TSL 4, low-income 

households experience an average net 

LCC cost of $37 for PC 1 and $21 for PC 

2. The percentage of low-income 

consumers who experience a net LCC 

cost is 73 percent for PC 1 and 68 

percent for PC 2. Low-income 

households will experience an installed 

cost increase of $169 for PC 1 (60 

percent price increase relative to 

baseline unit) and $179 for PC 2 (57 

percent price increase relative to 

baseline unit). The simple payback 

period for low-income households is 7.6 

years for PC 1 and 6.4 years for PC 2. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $85.3 

million to a decrease of $36.8 million, 

which corresponds to decreases of 53.9 

percent and 23.2 percent, respectively. 

DOE estimates that industry must invest 

$73.9 million to completely redesign 

nearly all models to accommodate larger 

heat exchangers and new chassis 

designs. 

Overall, DOE estimates that less than 

1 percent of current industry shipments 

meet the efficiencies required at TSL 4. 

A max-tech standard would require 

significant investment. Most 

manufacturers would need to 

incorporate larger heat exchangers, 

which would necessitate increasing 

chassis dimensions of both portable and 

whole-home units since most 

dehumidifiers cannot accommodate a 

larger heat exchanger within the 

existing cabinet structure. For the 

portable dehumidifier classes, which 

together account for nearly 98 percent of 

industry shipments, most manufacturers 

would need to make significant 

investments to adjust equipment and 

tooling to accommodate new 

dimensions across their entire product 

portfolio. DOE estimates that no 

portable dehumidifier shipments 

currently meet the max-tech 

efficiencies. Of the 15 portable 

dehumidifier OEMs, none currently 

offer any models that meet the max-tech 

efficiencies. Whole-home dehumidifiers 

account for the remaining 2 percent of 

industry shipments. DOE estimates that 

approximately 3 percent of whole-home 

dehumidifier shipments meet max-tech 

efficiencies. DOE identified only three 

OEMs producing whole-home 

dehumidifiers for the U.S. market. Of 

those three whole-home OEMs, only one 

currently offers a PC 4 model that meets 

the max-tech level. The other two OEMs 

would therefore need to dedicate 

significant engineering resources to 

redesign their entire product portfolio to 

include larger heat exchangers, which 

would necessitate a change in 

dimensions and chassis designs. For 

product class 5, only one OEM 

manufacturers whole-home 

dehumidifiers greater than 8.0 cu. ft. (PC 

5). This OEM does not currently offer 

any models that meet the max-tech 

efficiency required. Given the limited 

number of whole-home OEMs, the 

limited number of models currently 

available that meet the max-tech 

efficiency levels, and the extent of the 

redesign required for the OEMs without 

any max-tech product offerings, there is 

uncertainty whether whole-home 

products would remain sufficiently 

available to meet consumer demand at 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76564 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

the compliance date of amended 

standards set at TSL 4. At this TSL, DOE 

expects an estimated 23-percent drop in 

shipments compared to the no-newstandards case shipments in the year the 

standard takes effect (2028), as some 

consumers may forgo or delay 

purchasing a new dehumidifier due to 

the increased upfront cost of standardscompliant models. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes 

that at TSL 4 for dehumidifiers, the 

benefits of energy savings, positive NPV 

of consumer benefits, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary 

value of the emissions reductions would 

be outweighed by the economic burden 

on a majority of consumers, and the 

impacts on manufacturers, including the 

large conversion costs, profit margin 

impacts that could result in a large 

reduction in INPV, and the lack of 

manufacturers currently offering 

products meeting the efficiency levels 

required at this TSL. Across all product 

classes, a majority of dehumidifier 

consumers (61 percent) would 

experience a net LCC cost. Additionally, 

the average LCC savings would be 

negative for PC 1 and PC 3. DOE’s 

consumer subgroup analysis indicates 

that both low-income and senior-only 

households would experience larger 

economic burdens compared to the 

national population. All portable 

dehumidifier product classes, which 

account for 97 percent of dehumidifiers 

in low-income households and 98 

percent in senior-only households, have 

a negative average LCC savings and 

majority of consumers experience a net 

cost. For PC 2 which accounts for 71 

percent of the low-income market share 

of all dehumidifiers, the average net 

LCC cost is $21 and 68 percent of the 

low-income consumers would 

experience a net cost. Weighted across 

all product classes, the average lowincome consumer would experience a 

net LCC cost of $23 and 69 percent of 

low-income consumers would 

experience a net cost at TSL 4. The 

average senior-only household would 

experience a net LCC cost of $8 and 66 

percent of consumers experiencing a net 

cost. The potential reduction in INPV 

could be as high as 53.9 percent. The 

drop in industry value and reduction in 

free cash flow after the compliance year 

is driven by a range of factors, but most 

notably the changes are driven by 

conversion cost investments 

manufacturers must make to redesign 

and produce more efficient products. 

Most manufacturers would need to 

dedicate significant capital and 

engineering resources to develop new 

chassis designs to accommodate larger 

heat exchangers. Due to the limited 

amount of engineering resources each 

manufacturer has, it is unclear if most 

manufacturers will be able to redesign 

their entire product offerings of 

dehumidifiers covered by this 

rulemaking in the 3-year compliance 

period. Consequently, the Secretary has 

tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 3, which 

represents efficiency level 3 for PC 1, PC 

2, and PC 5, efficiency level 1 for PC 3, 

and efficiency level 2 for PC 4. At this 

level, DOE expects that all product 

classes would incorporate a higher 

efficiency compressor. For PC 4 and 5, 

technology options include the addition 

of an ECM blower and a larger heat 

exchanger. TSL 3 would save an 

estimated 0.33 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $1.26 billion using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $2.61 

billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 6.94 Mt of CO2, 1.76 

thousand tons of SO2, 11.81 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 51.94 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.06 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the climate benefits 

from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 3 is 

$0.40 billion. The estimated monetary 

value of the health benefits from 

reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 

3 is $0.33 billion using a 7-percent 

discount rate and $0.74 billion using a 

3-percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 3 is $1.99 billion. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated total 

NPV at TSL 3 is $3.75 billion. The 

estimated total NPV is provided for 

additional information, however DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a proposed standard level is 

economically justified. 

For portable dehumidifiers at TSL 3, 

the average LCC impact is a savings of 

$42 for PC 1, $81 for PC 2, and $31 for 

PC 3. The simple payback period is 0.9 

years for PC 1, 0.6 years for PC 2, and 

4.8 years for PC 3. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing a net LCC cost 

is 3 percent for PC 1, 0 percent for PC 

2, and 33 percent for PC 3. For wholehome dehumidifiers, the average LCC 

savings is $56 for PC 4 and $146 for PC 

5. The simple payback period is 6.4 

years for PC 4 and 5.7 years for PC 5. 

The fraction of consumers experiencing 

a net LCC cost is 8 percent for PC 4 and 

38 percent for PC 5. Weighting across all 

product classes, 1 percent of 

dehumidifier consumers would 

experience a net cost. The average LCC 

savings are positive for all product 

classes for the national consumer 

samples as well as for the low-income 

and senior-only consumer samples. At 

TSL 3, the percentage of low-income 

households that experience a net LCC 

cost is 7 percent for PC 1 and 0 percent 

for PC 2. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $5.2 

million to a decrease of $3.3 million, 

which correspond to decreases of 3.3 

percent and 2.1 percent, respectively. 

DOE estimates that industry must invest 

$6.9 million to comply with standards 

set at TSL 3. DOE estimates that 

approximately 3 percent of industry 

shipments currently meet the efficiency 

levels analyzed at TSL 3. 

DOE estimates that approximately 2 

percent of portable dehumidifier 

shipments currently meet the TSL 3 

efficiency levels. At this level, 

manufacturers would likely incur 

product conversion costs to qualify, 

source, and test more efficient 

compressors. However, DOE does not 

expect portable dehumidifier 

manufacturers would need to adopt new 

or larger chassis designs because the 

proposed levels may be met through 

component swaps in existing chassis 

designs. Thus, DOE does not expect 

manufacturers would incur notable 

capital conversion costs to meet the 

efficiencies required. For whole-home 

dehumidifiers, DOE expects some 

manufacturers would need to adopt new 

or larger chassis designs to 

accommodate larger heat exchangers but 

not to the extent required at max-tech. 

For whole-home dehumidifier designs, 

DOE expects that the size differences 

would not necessitate capital 

investment since existing machinery 

could likely still be used. DOE estimates 

that 78 percent of PC 4 shipments 

(which account for 85 percent of wholehome dehumidifier shipments) meet the 

efficiency level required. Of the three 

whole-home dehumidifier OEMs, two 

OEMs currently offer PC 4 models that 

meet the efficiency required. As with 

TSL 4, whole-home dehumidifier 

manufacturers would likely need to 

completely redesign models that do not 

meet the required efficiencies. However, 

approximately 60 percent of PC 4 basic 

model listings (around 32 unique basic 

models), representing the full range of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76565 

existing sizes of PC 4 models (1.7 to 6.6 

cu. ft.), already meet the efficiency level 

required. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and burdens, the 

Secretary has tentatively concluded that 

a standard set at TSL 3 for 

dehumidifiers would be economically 

justified. At this TSL, the average LCC 

savings for all product classes are 

positive. An estimated 1 percent of 

portable dehumidifier (PC 1, PC 2, and 

PC 3) and 13 percent of whole-home 

dehumidifier (PC 4 and PC 5) 

consumers experience a net cost. The 

FFC national energy savings are 

significant and the NPV of consumer 

benefits is positive using both a 3- 

percent and 7-percent discount rate. 

Notably, the benefits to consumers 

vastly outweigh the cost to 

manufacturers. At TSL 3, the NPV of 

consumer benefits, even measured at the 

more conservative discount rate of 7 

percent, is approximately 242 times 

higher than the maximum estimated 

manufacturers’ loss in INPV. The 

standard levels at TSL 3 are 

economically justified even without 

weighing the estimated monetary value 

of emissions reductions. When those 

emissions reductions are included— 

representing $0.40 billion in climate 

benefits (associated with the average 

SC–GHG at a 7-percent discount rate), 

and $0.74 billion (using a 3-percent 

discount rate) or $0.33 billion (using a 

7-percent discount rate) in health 

benefits—the rationale becomes stronger 

still. 

As stated, DOE conducts the walkdown analysis to determine the TSL that 

represents the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified as required under 

EPCA. The walk-down is not a 

comparative analysis, as a comparative 

analysis would result in the 

maximization of net benefits instead of 

energy savings that are technologically 

feasible and economically justified, 

which would be contrary to the statute. 

86 FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has 

not conducted a comparative analysis to 

select the proposed energy conservation 

standards, DOE notes that as compared 

to TSL 4, TSL 3 has shorter payback 

periods, smaller percentages of 

consumer experiencing a net cost, 

higher LCC savings for all product 

classes, a lower maximum decrease in 

INPV, and lower manufacturer 

conversion costs. 

Although DOE considered proposed 

amended standard levels for 

dehumidifiers by grouping the 

efficiency levels for each product class 

into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed 

efficiency levels in its analysis. For 

portable dehumidifiers with capacities 

less than or equal to 50.0 pints per day, 

which account for 97 percent of the 

dehumidifier market, TSL 3 represents 

the maximum energy savings that does 

not result in a large percentage of 

consumers experiencing a net LCC cost. 

Efficiency levels above the proposed 

standard have lower LCC savings and a 

significantly larger percentage of 

consumers that experience a net cost. 

For portable dehumidifiers with 

capacities greater than 50.0 pints per 

day, which accounts for 1.1 percent of 

the dehumidifier market, TSL 3 

corresponds to EL 1, the only efficiency 

level with positive LCC savings and a 

majority of consumers either not 

impacted or positively impacted by the 

proposed standard. For whole-home 

dehumidifiers, which represent 1.6 

percent of the dehumidifier market, TSL 

3 corresponds to efficiency levels one 

level below the max-tech efficiency 

level. For PC 4, which accounts for 

approximately 85 of the whole-home 

dehumidifier shipments, one OEM (out 

of the three whole-home OEMs) 

currently offers one model that meets 

the max-tech level. Given the limited 

number of whole-home OEMs, the 

limited number of models currently 

available that meet the max-tech 

efficiency level, and the extent of the 

redesign required for the OEMs without 

any max-tech product offerings, there is 

a risk that the 3-year period between the 

announcement of the final rule and the 

compliance date of the amended energy 

conservation standard might be 

insufficient to design, test, and 

manufacture the necessary number of 

whole-home products to meet consumer 

demand. For PC 5, a majority of 

consumers would experience negative 

LCC savings at the max-tech efficiency 

level. At the proposed TSL, the LCC 

savings are higher and the percent 

negatively impacted consumers are 

lower compared to the max-tech 

efficiency level. 

Therefore, based on the previous 

considerations, DOE proposes to adopt 

the energy conservation standards for 

dehumidifiers at TSL 3. The proposed 

amended energy conservation standards 

for dehumidifiers, which are expressed 

as IEF, are shown in Table V.34. 

TABLE V.34—PROPOSED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS

Product class 

Minimum 

integrated 

energy factor 

(L/kWh) 

TSL 3 

PC 1: Portable Dehumidifiers ≤25.00 Pints/Day ............................................................................................................................... 1.70 

PC 2: Portable Dehumidifiers 25.01–50.00 Pints/Day ...................................................................................................................... 2.01 

PC 3: Portable Dehumidifiers >50.00 Pints/Day ............................................................................................................................... 3.10 

PC 4: Whole-Home Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 cu. ft. Case Volume ........................................................................................................... 2.22 

PC 5: Whole-Home Dehumidifiers >8.0 cu. ft. Case Volume ........................................................................................................... 3.81 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Proposed Standards 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

net benefit is (1) the annualized national 

economic value (expressed in 2022$) of 

the benefits from operating products 

that meet the proposed standards 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in product purchase costs), 

and (2) the annualized monetary value 

of the climate and health benefits from 

emission reductions. 

Table V.35 shows the annualized 

values for dehumidifiers under TSL 3, 

expressed in 2022$. The results under 

the primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3- 

percent discount rate case for GHG 

social costs, the estimated cost of the 

proposed standards for dehumidifiers is 

$8.55 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the estimated 

annual benefits are $142.04 million 

from reduced equipment operating 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76566 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

costs, $22.85 million from GHG 

reductions, and $34.54 million from 

reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this 

case, the net benefit amounts to $190.89 

million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards for 

dehumidifiers is $7.89 million per year 

in increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual benefits are $157.99 

million in reduced operating costs, 

$22.85 million from GHG reductions, 

and $42.30 million from reduced NOX

and SO2 emissions. In this case, the net 

benefit amounts to $215.24 million per 

year. 

TABLE V.35—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

DEHUMIDIFIERS

[TSL 3] 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary 

estimate 

Low-net-benefits 

estimate 

High-net-benefits 

estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................. 157.99 153.04 163.15 

Climate Benefits * ......................................................................................................... 22.85 22.66 22.93 

Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................... 42.30 41.95 42.42 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................ 223.14 217.65 228.50 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ...................................................................... 7.89 7.94 7.77 

Net Benefits ................................................................................................................. 215.24 209.71 220.74 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV‡‡) .................................................................... (0.5)–(0.3) (0.5)–(0.3) (0.5)–(0.3) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................. 142.04 138.10 146.50 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) .......................................................................... 22.85 22.66 22.93

Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................... 34.54 34.31 34.64 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................ 199.44 195.07 204.06 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ...................................................................... 8.55 8.58 8.44 

Net Benefits ................................................................................................................. 190.89 186.49 195.62 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV‡‡) .................................................................... (0.5)–(0.3) (0.5)–(0.3) (0.5)–(0.3) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with dehumidifiers shipped in 2028–2057. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028¥2057. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. 

In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections 

IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational 

purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not 

have a single central SC–GHG point estimate and emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets 

of SC–GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 

2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE 

does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. 

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See 

sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE’s national impacts analysis includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution 

chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by 

the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (i.e., manufacturer impact analysis, or ‘‘MIA’’). 

See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers’ pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule’s expected impact on the INPV. The 

change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 8.4 percent that 

is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average 

cost of capital). For dehumidifiers, the annualized change in INPV ranges from ¥$0.5 million to ¥$0.3 million. DOE accounts for that range of 

likely impacts in analyzing whether a trial standard level is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range 

of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario 

used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table; and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE 

assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE 

includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposal to society, including potential changes in production and 

consumption, which is consistent with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $214.8 million to $214.9 million at 3-percent discount rate and 

would range from $190.4 million to $190.6 million at 7-percent discount rate. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76567 

D. Reporting, Certification, and 

Sampling Plan 

Manufacturers, including importers, 

must use product-specific certification 

templates to certify compliance to DOE. 

For dehumidifiers, the certification 

template reflects the general 

certification requirements specified at 

10 CFR 429.12. As discussed in the 

previous paragraphs, DOE is not 

proposing to amend the product-specific 

certification requirements for these 

products. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866, 13563 and 14094 

E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ as supplemented and 

reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 76 

FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) and amended by 

E.O. 14094, ‘‘Modernizing Regulatory 

Review,’’ 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), 

requires agencies, to the extent 

permitted by law, to (1) propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) 

tailor regulations to impose the least 

burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account, among other things, and to 

the extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this proposed 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this proposed 

regulatory action constitutes a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within 

the scope of section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 

12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 

6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has 

provided to OIRA an assessment, 

including the underlying analysis, of 

benefits and costs anticipated from the 

proposed regulatory action, together 

with, to the extent feasible, a 

quantification of those costs; and an 

assessment, including the underlying 

analysis, of costs and benefits of 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives to the planned 

regulation, and an explanation why the 

planned regulatory action is preferable 

to the identified potential alternatives. 

These assessments are summarized in 

this preamble and further detail can be 

found in the technical support 

document for this rulemaking. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel). DOE has 

prepared the following IRFA for the 

products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. 

For manufacturers of dehumidifiers, 

the SBA has set a size threshold, which 

defines those entities classified as 

‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of 

the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small 

business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of the rule. 

(See 13 CFR part 121.) The size 

standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code and industry description and are 

available at www.sba.gov/document/ 

support--table-size-standards. 

Manufacturing of portable 

dehumidifiers is classified under NAICS 

335210, ‘‘Small Electrical Appliance 

Manufacturing’’ and manufacturing of 

whole-home dehumidifiers is classified 

under NAICS 333415, ‘‘Air 

Conditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ For NAICS 335210, the 

SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees 

or less and for NAICS 333415, the SBA 

sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or 

less, for an entity to be considered as a 

small business for these categories. For 

the purpose of this IRFA, DOE used the 

higher employee limit of 1,500 in order 

to establish a more inclusive threshold 

for what determines a ‘‘small business.’’ 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

DOE is proposing amended energy 

conservation standards for 

dehumidifiers. EPCA authorizes DOE to 

regulate the energy efficiency of a 

number of consumer products and 

certain industrial equipment. Title III, 

Part B of EPCA established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. 

These products include dehumidifiers, 

the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(cc)) In a final rule published on 

June 13, 2016, DOE prescribed the 

current energy conservation standards 

for dehumidifiers manufactured on and 

after June 13, 2019. 81 FR 38338. EPCA 

provides that, not later than 6 years after 

the issuance of any final rule 

establishing or amending a standard, 

DOE must publish either a notice of 

determination that standards for the 

product do not need to be amended, or 

a NOPR including new proposed energy 

conservation standards (proceeding to a 

final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)) This propose rulemaking is 

in accordance with DOE’s obligations 

under EPCA. 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, 

Rule 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of 

EPCA established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. 

These products include dehumidifiers, 

the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(cc)) EPCA prescribed energy 

conservation standards for these 

products. Id. EPCA further provides 

that, not later than 6 years after the 

issuance of any final rule establishing or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76568 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

71U.S. Department of Energy’s Compliance 

Certification Database is available at: 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/ 

#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (Last accessed February 

21, 2023). 

72California Energy Commission’s Modernized 

Appliance Efficiency Database System is available 

at: cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/ 

AdvancedSearch.aspx. (Last accessed February 21, 

2023.) 

73U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

ENERGY STAR Product Finder data set is available 

at: www.energystar.gov/productfinder/ (Last 

accessed February 21, 2023.) 

74S&P Global. Panjiva Market Intelligence is 

available at: panjiva.com/import-export/UnitedStates (Last accessed May 5, 2022). 

75The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription 

login is available at app.dnbhoovers.com. (Last 

accessed March 23, 2023). 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

3. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

DOE conducted a market assessment 

using public information and 

subscription-based company reports to 

identify potential small manufacturers. 

DOE began its assessment by compiling 

a product database of dehumidifier 

models available in the United States. 

To develop a comprehensive product 

database of dehumidifier basic models, 

DOE reviewed its Compliance 

Certification Database (CCD),71

supplemented by information from 

California Energy Commission’s 

Modernized Appliance Efficiency 

Database System (MAEDbS),72 EPA’s 

ENERGY STAR Product Finder data 

set,73 individual company websites, and 

prior dehumidifier rulemakings. DOE 

then reviewed the comprehensive 

product database to identify the original 

equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of the 

dehumidifier models identified. DOE 

consulted publicly available data, such 

as manufacturer websites, manufacturer 

specifications and product literature, 

import/export logs (e.g., bills of lading 

from Panjiva 74), and basic model 

numbers, to identify OEMs of covered 

dehumidifiers. DOE further relied on 

public data and subscription-based 

market research tools (e.g., Dun & 

Bradstreet reports 75) to determine 

company, location, headcount, and 

annual revenue. DOE screened out 

companies that do not offer products 

covered by this rulemaking, do not meet 

the SBA’s definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign-owned and 

operated. 

Based on its review, DOE identified 

20 OEMs that sell dehumidifiers in the 

United States. DOE then determined 

that of the 20 OEMs, 19 were either 

large OEMs or are foreign owned and 

operated. Therefore, DOE tentatively 

determined that one company is a small, 

domestic manufacturer that meets the 

SBA’s definition of a ‘‘small business’’ 

(i.e., the company has 1,500 employees 

or less) and manufactures products 

covered by this rulemaking. This small 

business manufactures whole-home 

dehumidifiers ≤8.0 cubic feet (Product 

Class 4). 

DOE reached out to this small 

business and invited them to participate 

in voluntary interviews. However, this 

small business did not consent to 

participate in the voluntary interviews 

conducted in support of the NOPR 

analysis. DOE also requested 

information about small businesses and 

potential impacts on small businesses 

while interviewing larger 

manufacturers. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements Including 

Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different 

Groups of Small Entities 

DOE reviewed its product database 

and identified 35 basic models of 

whole-home dehumidifiers with a 

capacity of under 8.0 cubic feet (Product 

Class 4) manufactured by this small, 

domestic OEM. Of those 35 models, 23 

models currently meet the TSL 3 

efficiency level. Should this small 

business choose to redesign the 12 

models that do not currently meet the 

proposed amended standard, DOE 

estimates that the small business would 

need to invest $337,000 in product 

conversion costs to redesign all 12 

models to incorporate higher efficiency 

compressors, ECM blowers, and larger 

heat exchangers. Product conversion 

costs are investments in research, 

development, testing, marketing, and 

other non-capitalized costs necessary to 

make product designs comply with 

amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE’s engineering analysis 

indicates manufacturers would likely be 

able to produce compliant products 

with existing machinery, and, therefore, 

DOE tentatively does not expect meeting 

the proposed standard would require 

new equipment or tooling. DOE’s 

analysis focused on the investments 

associated with amended standards; 

investments associated with changes in 

regulations by other State or Federal 

agencies (i.e., refrigerant regulations) are 

not attributed to amended standards. 

Based on annual revenue estimates from 

Dun & Bradstreet, DOE estimated the 

company’s annual revenue to be $221 

million. The total conversion costs of 

$337,000 are less than 0.1 percent of 

company revenue over the 3-year 

conversion period. 

DOE seeks comments, information, 

and data on the number of small 

businesses in the industry, the names of 

those small businesses, and their market 

shares by product class. DOE also 

requests comment on the potential 

impacts of the proposed standards on 

small manufacturers. 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The discussion in the previous 

section analyzes impacts on small 

businesses that would result from DOE’s 

proposed rule, represented by TSL 3. In 

reviewing alternatives to the proposed 

rule, DOE examined energy 

conservation standards set at lower 

efficiency levels. While TSL 1 and TSL 

2 would reduce the impacts on small 

business manufacturers, it would come 

at the expense of a reduction in energy 

savings. TSL 1 achieves 98 percent 

lower energy savings compared to the 

energy savings at TSL 3. TSL 2 achieves 

95 percent lower energy savings 

compared to the energy savings at TSL 

3. 

Based on the presented discussion, 

establishing standards at TSL 3 balances 

the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 

3 with the potential burdens placed on 

dehumidifier manufacturers, including 

small business manufacturers. 

Accordingly, DOE does not propose one 

of the other TSLs considered in the 

analysis, or the other policy alternatives 

examined as part of the regulatory 

impact analysis and included in chapter 

17 of the NOPR TSD. 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

EPCA provides that a manufacturer 

whose annual gross revenue from all of 

its operations does not exceed $8 

million may apply for an exemption 

from all or part of an energy 

conservation standard for a period not 

longer than 24 months after the effective 

date of a final rule establishing the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) 

Additionally, manufacturers subject to 

DOE’s energy efficiency standards may 

apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings and 

Appeals for exception relief under 

certain circumstances. Manufacturers 

should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional 

details. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76569 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of dehumidifiers must 

certify to DOE that their products 

comply with any applicable energy 

conservation standards. In certifying 

compliance, manufacturers must test 

their products according to the DOE test 

procedures for dehumidifiers, including 

any amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including 

dehumidifiers. (See generally 10 CFR 

part 429). The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). This 

requirement has been approved by OMB 

under OMB control number 1910–1400. 

Public reporting burden for the 

certification is estimated to average 35 

hours per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed 

regulation in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR part 

1021). DOE’s regulations include a 

categorical exclusion for rulemakings 

that establish energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE 

anticipates that this rulemaking 

qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 

because it is a rulemaking that 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment, none of the 

exceptions identified in categorical 

exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

require further environmental analysis, 

and it otherwise meets the requirements 

for application of a categorical 

exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE 

will complete its NEPA review before 

issuing the final rule. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this proposed 

rule and has tentatively determined that 

it would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of this proposed 

rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any, 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction, (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

Executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 

12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, 

section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 

For a proposed regulatory action likely 

to result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

intergovernmental mandate, nor is it 

expected to require expenditures of 

$100 million or more in any one year by 

the private sector. As a result, the 

analytical requirements of UMRA do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76570 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

76The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at 

energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0 (last accessed DATE). 

77The report is available at 

www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards. 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

rule would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for Federal agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/ 

12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated

%20IQA%20Guidelines

%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 

reviewed this NOPR under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy 

Effects for any proposed significant 

energy action. A ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ is defined as any action by an 

agency that promulgates or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule, 

and that (1) is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, or 

any successor order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

this regulatory action, which proposes 

amended energy conservation standards 

for dehumidifiers, is not a significant 

energy action because the proposed 

standards are not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on this proposed rule. 

L. Information Quality 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

a report describing that peer review.76

Generation of this report involved a 

rigorous, formal, and documented 

evaluation using objective criteria and 

qualified and independent reviewers to 

make a judgment as to the technical/ 

scientific/business merit, the actual or 

anticipated results, and the productivity 

and management effectiveness of 

programs and/or projects. Because 

available data, models, and 

technological understanding have 

changed since 2007, DOE has engaged 

with the National Academy of Sciences 

to review DOE’s analytical 

methodologies to ascertain whether 

modifications are needed to improve 

DOE’s analyses. DOE is in the process 

of evaluating the resulting report.77

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date the webinar 

meeting are listed in the DATES section 

at the beginning of this document. 

Webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published on DOE’s website: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/ 

standards.aspx?productid=24. 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this proposed rule, 

or who is representative of a group or 

class of persons that has an interest in 

these issues, may request an 

opportunity to make an oral 

presentation at the webinar. Such 

persons may submit to 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this proposed rulemaking 

and the topics they wish to discuss. 

Such persons should also provide a 

daytime telephone number where they 

can be reached. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar/public meeting 

and may also use a professional 

facilitator to aid discussion. The 

meeting will not be a judicial or 

evidentiary-type public hearing, but 

DOE will conduct it in accordance with 

section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A 

court reporter will be present to record 

the proceedings and prepare a 

transcript. DOE reserves the right to 

schedule the order of presentations and 

to establish the procedures governing 

the conduct of the webinar. There shall 

not be discussion of proprietary 

information, costs or prices, market 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76571 

share, or other commercial matters 

regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After 

the webinar and until the end of the 

comment period, interested parties may 

submit further comments on the 

proceedings and any aspect of the 

proposed rulemaking. 

The webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will a 

general overview of the topics addressed 

in this rulemaking, allow time for 

prepared general statements by 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this propose 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this propose 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

webinar/public meeting will accept 

additional comments or questions from 

those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

webinar. 

A transcript of the webinar will be 

included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this 

document. In addition, any person may 

buy a copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments, data, and other 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

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

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or postal mail. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email, hand delivery/courier, or 

postal mail also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ 

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible, in which case it is not 

necessary to submit printed copies. No 

telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE requests comment on the 

effects of EPA and CARB regulations on 

refrigerant choices and on whether 

changes in refrigerant will affect 

manufacturer’s ability to achieve the 

efficiency levels in the NOPR analysis 

and the availability of high-efficiency 

R–32 compressors. 

(2) DOE requests comment regarding 

consumer’s dehumidifier usage patterns 

and whether consumers typically 

purchase multiple smaller 

dehumidifiers to meet dehumidification 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
76572 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

requirements as opposed to a single, 

higher capacity dehumidifier. 

(3) DOE requests comment on 

whether limiting needed chassis size 

increases are sufficient to preserve 

consumer utility at the max-tech level. 

(4) DOE requests comment on the 

incremental MPCs from the NOPR 

engineering analysis. 

(5) DOE seeks available data on 

installation costs for baseline and more 

efficient units. 

(6) DOE seeks comment on the 

assumption that dehumidifier 

consumers are most likely to replace a 

broken unit rather than repair it. DOE 

also seeks available data on the repair 

frequency. 

(7) DOE seeks data and comment on 

its efficiency distribution estimate and 

the assumption of an annual efficiency 

improvement of 0.25 percent and the 

expected market respond to updated 

ENERGY STAR 6.0 specifications. 

(8) DOE requests comment on its 

tentative conclusion that refrigerant 

desiccant dehumidifier manufacturers 

would be similarly impacted by 

potential amended standards and 

therefore would not warrant a separate 

subgroup analysis. 

(9) DOE requests comment on how to 

address the climate benefits and other 

effects of the proposal. 

(10) DOE seeks comments, 

information, and data on the capital 

conversion costs and product 

conversion costs estimated for each 

TSL. 

(11) DOE seeks comment on whether 

manufacturers expect manufacturing 

capacity constraints or engineering 

resource constraints would limit 

product availability to consumers in the 

timeframe of the amended standard 

compliance date (2028). 

(12) DOE requests information 

regarding the impact of cumulative 

regulatory burden on manufacturers of 

dehumidifiers associated with multiple 

DOE standards or product-specific 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies. 

(13) DOE requests comments on the 

magnitude of costs associated with 

transitioning dehumidifier products and 

production facilities to accommodate 

low-GWP refrigerants that would be 

incurred between the publication of this 

NOPR and the proposed compliance 

date of amended standards. 

Quantification and categorization of 

these costs, such as engineering efforts, 

testing lab time, certification costs, and 

capital investments (e.g., new charging 

equipment), would enable DOE to refine 

its analysis. 

(14) DOE seeks comments, 

information, and data on the number of 

small businesses in the industry, the 

names of those small businesses, and 

their market shares by product class. 

DOE also requests comment on the 

potential impacts of the proposed 

standards on small manufacturers. 

(15) Additionally, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this rulemaking that may 

not specifically be identified in this 

document. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking and announcement of 

public meeting. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on October 27, 2023, 

by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on October 27, 

2023. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

part 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code 

of Federal Regulations as set forth 

below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Amend § 430.32 by revising 

paragraph (v) to read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(v) Dehumidifiers. (1) Dehumidifiers 

manufactured on or after June 13, 2019, 

and before [date 3 years after date of 

publication of the final rule], shall have 

an integrated energy factor that meets or 

exceeds the following values: 

Portable dehumidifier product capacity 

(pints/day) 

Minimum 

integrated 

energy factor 

(liters/kWh) 

25.00 or less ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 1.30 

25.01–50.00 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.60 

50.01 or more ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.80 

Whole-home dehumidifier product case volume 

(cubic feet) 

 

8.0 or less ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1.77 

More than 8.0 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.41 

(2) Dehumidifiers manufactured on or 

after [date 3 years after date of 

publication of the final rule], shall have an integrated energy factor that meets or 

exceeds the following values: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 213 / Monday, November 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules 76573 

Portable dehumidifier product capacity 

(pints/day) 

Minimum 

integrated 

energy factor 

(liters/kWh) 

25.00 or less ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 1.70 

25.01–50.00 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.01 

50.01 or more ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.10 

Whole-home dehumidifier product case volume 

(cubic feet) 

 

8.0 or less ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 2.22 

More than 8.0 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.81 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–24106 Filed 11–3–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3