Vol. 80 Wednesday, 

No. 106 June 3, 2015 

Part II 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 

Residential Dehumidifiers; Proposed Rule 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31646 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EERE–2012–BT–STD– 

0027] 

RIN 1904–AC81 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Residential 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 of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including residential dehumidifiers. 

EPCA also requires the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) to periodically 

determine whether more-stringent, 

amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. In this 

document, DOE proposes amended 

energy conservation standards for 

different categories of residential 

dehumidifiers. This document 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 notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the 

public meeting, but no later than August 

3, 2015. See section VII, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for details. 

Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

meeting on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, from 

9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The 

meeting will also be broadcast as a 

webinar. See section VII, ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will also be 

broadcast as a webinar. See section VII, 

‘‘Public Participation’’ for webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants. The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for Energy 

Conservation Standards for Residential 

Dehumidifiers, and provide docket 

number EERE–2012–BT–STD–0027 

and/or regulatory information number 

(RIN) number 1904–AC81. Comments 

may be submitted using any of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: 

ResDehumidifier2012STD0027@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

and/or RIN in the subject line of the 

message. 

3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy through the methods listed 

above and by email to Chad_S_

Whiteman@omb.eop.gov. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section VII, ‘‘Public Participation.’’ 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, some documents listed in the 

index, such as those containing 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure, may not be publicly 

available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

product.aspx/productid/55. This Web 

page will contain a link to the docket for 

this notice on the www.regulations.gov 

site. The www.regulations.gov Web page 

contains simple instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section 

VII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for further 

information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–0371. Email: 

bryan.berringer@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 Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@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 

Residential Dehumidifiers 

III. General Discussion 

A. Product Classes and 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 

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 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Definition and Scope of Coverage 

2. Product Classes 

a. Preliminary Analysis Proposals 

b. Comments and Responses 

c. NOPR Proposals 

3. Technology Options 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

2. Remaining Technologies 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Levels 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31647 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

3The current energy conservation standards for 

residential dehumidifiers went into effect on 

October 1, 2012. EPCA, as amended, provides that 

a ‘‘manufacturer shall not be required to apply new 

standards to a product with respect to which other 

new standards have been required during the prior 

6-year period.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B)) Thus, the 

proposed standards could not go into effect until 

October 1, 2018 at the earliest. DOE anticipates 

issuing a final rule on amended energy conservation 

standards for residential dehumidifiers in 2016. To 

ensure that the amended standards will not go into 

effect until after October 1, 2018, DOE is not 

requiring compliance with the new standards until 

three years after the publication of the final rule. 

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

b. Higher Energy Efficiency Levels 

2. Manufacturer Production Cost Estimates 

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. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution 

9. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

10. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

Period 

G. Shipments 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. National Energy Savings 

a. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case 

and Standards Cases 

2. Net Present Value Analysis 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(GRIM) 

a. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Key Inputs 

b. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Scenarios 

3. Discussion of Comments 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

K. Emissions Analysis 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon 

Values 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

V. Analytical Results 

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. 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. 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. Summary of National Economic Impacts 

8. Other Factors 

C. Conclusion 

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard 

Levels Considered for Residential 

Dehumidifiers 

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Standards 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

a. Methodology for Estimating the Number 

of Small Entities 

b. Manufacturer Participation 

c. Industry Structure 

d. Comparison of Large and Small Entities 

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

4. 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. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

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 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.2 These products include 

residential dehumidifiers, the subject of 

this notice. 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that 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 notice of proposed 

rulemaking including new proposed 

energy conservation standards. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Once complete, this 

rulemaking will satisfy this statutory 

provision. 

In accordance with these and other 

statutory provisions discussed in this 

notice, DOE proposes amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

dehumidifiers. The proposed standards, 

which correspond to trial standard level 

3 (described in section V.A), divide 

residential dehumidifiers into two 

categories: Portable and whole-home. 

The proposed minimum allowable 

integrated energy factor (IEF) standards, 

which are expressed in liters (L) of 

moisture removed per kilowatt-hour 

(kWh), are shown in Table I.1. These 

proposed standards, if adopted, would 

apply to all products listed in Table I.1 

and manufactured in, or imported into, 

the United States on or after the date 

three years after the publication of the 

final rule for this rulemaking.3

TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIERS

Portable dehumidifier product 

capacity 

(pints/day) 

Minimum 

IEF 

(L/kWh) 

30.00 or less ............................... 1.30 

30.01–45.00 ................................ 1.60 

45.01 or more ............................. 2.80 

Whole-home dehumidifier 

product case volume (cubic feet) 

8.0 or less ................................... 2.09 

More than 8.0 ............................. 3.52 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of 

the economic impacts of the proposed 

standards on consumers of residential 

dehumidifiers, as measured by the 

average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and 

the payback period (PBP). The average 

LCC savings are positive for all product 

classes and the PBP is significantly less 

than the average lifetimes for portable 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31648 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

4Lifetimes are based on: 28th Annual Portrait of 

the U.S. Appliance Industry, Appliance Magazine, 

Sept. 2005, at 65; Toru Kubo, Harvey Sachs, and 

Steve Nadel, Opportunities for New Appliance and 

Equipment Efficiency Standards: Energy and 

Economic Savings Beyond Current Standards 

Programs, American Council for an Energy Efficient 

Economy (Sept. 2001); Northeast Energy Star 

Lighting and Appliance, Dehumidifiers, (Available 

at http://www.myenergystar.com/

Dehumidifiers.aspx) (last visited Nov. 14, 2014). 

5The real discount rate is the weighted-average 

cost of capital derived from industry financials and 

modified based on feedback received during 

confidential interviews with manufacturers. 

6All monetary values in this section are 

expressed in 2013 dollars; discounted values are 

discounted to 2014 unless explicitly stated 

otherwise. 

7A quad is equal to 1015 British thermal units 

(Btu). 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.1 

8A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented 

in short tons. 

9 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to 

the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (AEO 2014) 

Reference case, which generally represents current 

legislation and environmental regulations for which 

implementing regulations were available as of 

October 31, 2013. 

10Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government 

(November 2013) (Available at: http://www.white

house.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/

technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator

-impact-analysis.pdf). 

11 DOE is currently investigating valuation of 

avoided Hg and SO2 emissions. 

and whole-home residential 

dehumidifiers, which are approximately 

11 and 19 years, respectively.4

dehumidifiers, which are approximately 

11 and 19 years, respectively.4

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

DEHUMIDIFIERS

Product class 

Average LCC 

savings 

(2013$) 

Payback period 

(years) 

Portable Dehumidifier: ≤30.00 pints/day ......................................................................................................... 64 0.2 

Portable Dehumidifier: 30.01–45.00 pints/day ................................................................................................ 99 0.2 

Portable Dehumidifier: >45.00 pints/day ......................................................................................................... 147 2.8 

Whole-home Dehumidifier: ≤8ft 3 ..................................................................................................................... 207 1.3 

Whole-home Dehumidifier: >8ft 3 ..................................................................................................................... 416 1.4 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed standards on consumers is 

described in section IV.F of this NOPR. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value (INPV) 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(2015 to 2048). Using a real discount 

rate of 8.43 percent,5 DOE estimates that 

the INPV for manufacturers of 

residential dehumidifiers is $186.5 

million.6 Under the proposed standards, 

DOE expects that manufacturers may 

lose up to 18.7 percent of their INPV, 

which is approximately $34.9 million. 

Additionally, based on DOE’s 

interviews with the manufacturers of 

residential dehumidifiers, DOE does not 

expect significant impacts on 

manufacturing capacity or loss of 

employment for the industry as a whole. 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed standards would save a 

significant amount of energy. The 

lifetime full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy 

savings for residential dehumidifiers 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the first full year of 

compliance with the amended standards 

(2019–2048) amount to 0.32 quads.7

The cumulative net present value 

(NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings for the proposed residential 

dehumidifier standards ranges from 

$1.04 billion (at a 7-percent discount 

rate) to $2.27 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 

residential dehumidifiers purchased in 

2019–2048. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

would have significant environmental 

benefits. The energy savings described 

above (for dehumidifiers purchased in 

the 2019–2048 period) are estimated to 

result in cumulative emission 

reductions of 19.3 million metric tons 

(Mt) 8 of carbon dioxide (CO2), 85.9 

thousand tons of methane (CH4), 16.0 

thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

28.8 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), 0.3 thousand tons of nitrous 

oxide (N2O), and 0.05 ton of mercury 

(Hg).9 The cumulative reduction in CO2

emissions through 2030 amounts to 5.9 

Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions 

resulting from the annual electricity use 

of 0.8 million homes. 

The value of the CO2 reductions is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 

the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) 

developed by a recent Federal 

interagency process.10 The derivation of 

the SCC values is discussed in section 

IV.L of this notice. Using discount rates 

appropriate for each set of SCC values, 

DOE estimates the present monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reduction is 

between $0.14 billion and $1.93 billion, 

DOE also estimates the present 

monetary value of the NOX emissions 

reduction, is $0.04 billion at a 7-percent 

discount rate and $0.10 billion at a 3- 

percent discount rate.11

Table I.3 summarizes the national 

economic costs and benefits expected to 

result from the proposed standards for 

residential dehumidifiers. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31649 

12To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2014, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

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

shipments occur (e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then 

discounted the present value from each year to 

2014. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 

7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the 

value of CO2 reductions, for which DOE used casespecific discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. DOE 

then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30- 

year period, starting in the compliance year, that 

yields the same present value. 

13The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of 

the order of 30–95 years. Mark Z. Jacobson, 

Correction to ‘‘Control of fossil-fuel particulate 

black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most 

effective method of slowing global warming,’’ 110 

J. Geophys. Res. D14105 (2005). 

14 DOE used a 3-percent discount rate because the 

SCC values for the series used in the calculation 

were derived using a 3-percent discount rate (see 

section IV.L). 

TABLE I.3—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIERS * 

Category Present value 

(billion 2013$) 

Discount rate 

(%) 

Benefits 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ................................................................................................................. 1.15 

2.49 

7 

3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) ** .......................................................................................... 0.14 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) ** .......................................................................................... 0.63 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) ** .......................................................................................... 0.99 2.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) ** ........................................................................................... 1.93 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) † ......................................................................................... 0.04 

0.10 

7 

3 

Total Benefits †† ....................................................................................................................................... 1.82 

3.21 

7 

3 

Costs 

Consumer Incremental Installed Costs ........................................................................................................... 0.12 

0.22 

7 

3 

Total Net Benefits 

Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value †† ....................................................................................... 1.70 

3.00 

7 

3 

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with residential dehumidifiers shipped in 2019–2048. These results include benefits to 

consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in 2019–2048. The incremental costs account for the incremental variable and 

fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The 

first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. 

† The $/ton values used for NOX are described in section IV.L.2. 

†† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate 

($40.5/t in 2015). 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

proposed standards, for products sold in 

2019–2048, can also be expressed in 

terms of annualized values. The 

monetary values for the total annualized 

net benefits are the sum of: (1) The 

national economic value of the benefits 

in reduced operating costs, minus (2) 

the increase in product purchase and 

installation costs, plus (3) the value of 

the benefits of CO2 and NOX emission 

reductions, all annualized.12

Although DOE believes that the 

benefits of operating cost savings and 

CO2 emission reductions are both 

important, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions, whereas the 

value of CO2 reductions is based on a 

global value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and CO2 savings 

are performed with different methods 

that use different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

residential dehumidifiers shipped in 

2019–2048. Because CO2 emissions have 

a very long residence time in the 

atmosphere,13 the SCC values in future 

years reflect future CO2-emissions 

impacts that continue well beyond 

2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the proposed standards are 

shown in Table I.4. The results under 

the primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

benefits and costs other than CO2

reduction (for which DOE used a 3- 

percent discount rate along with the 

average SCC series that has a value of 

$40.5/t in 2015),14 the estimated cost of 

the standards proposed in today’s rule 

is $12.6 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the estimated 

benefits are $122.0 million per year in 

reduced equipment operating costs, 

$35.9 million per year in CO2

reductions, and $4.6 million per year in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $150 million per 

year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for 

all benefits and costs and the average 

SCC series that has a value of $40.5/t in 

2015, the estimated cost of the standards 

proposed in today’s rule is $12.5 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the estimated benefits are $142.7 

million per year in reduced operating 

costs, $35.9 million per year in CO2

reductions, and $6.0 million per year in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $172 million per 

year. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31650 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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

DEHUMIDIFIERS

Discount rate 

Million 2013$/year 

Primary 

estimate * 

Low net 

benefits 

estimate * 

High net 

benefits 

estimate * 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................................................................................ 7% ...........................

3% ...........................

122.0 ...........

142.7 ...........

116.8 ...........

136.3 ...........

126.3 

149.2 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) ** ....................................... 5% ........................... 10.9 ............. 10.7 ............. 11.1 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case)** ........................................ 3% ........................... 35.9 ............. 35.3 ............. 36.7 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) ** ....................................... 2.5% ........................ 52.2 ............. 51.4 ............. 53.4 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) ** ........................................ 3% ........................... 110.9 ........... 109.2 ........... 113.4 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value † ............................................................... 7% ...........................

3% ...........................

4.65 .............

5.96 .............

4.59 .............

5.86 .............

4.73 

6.09 

Total Benefits †† .................................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range 138 to 238 ... 132 to 231 ... 142 to 244 

7% ........................... 163 .............. 157 .............. 168 

3% plus CO2 range 160 to 260 ... 153 to 251 ... 166 to 269 

3% ........................... 185 .............. 177 .............. 192 

Costs 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs .......................................................... 7% ...........................

3% ...........................

12.6 .............

12.5 .............

12.3 .............

12.0 .............

13.7 

13.9 

Net Benefits 

Total †† .................................................................................................. 7% plus CO2 range 125 to 225 ... 120 to 218 ... 128 to 231 

7% ........................... 150 .............. 144 .............. 154 

3% plus CO2 range 147 to 247 ... 141 to 239 ... 152 to 255 

3% ........................... 172 .............. 165 .............. 178 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with residential dehumidifiers shipped in 2019–2048. These results include 

benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in 2019–2048. The results account for the incremental variable and 

fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Benefits, 

and High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO 2015 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1 of 

this notice. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The 

first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. 

† The $/ton values used for NOX are described in section IV.L.2. 

†† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC with 3-percent discount rate 

($40.5/t in 2015). In the rows labeled ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using 

the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

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. DOE further 

notes that products achieving these 

standard levels are already 

commercially available for all product 

classes covered by today’s proposal. 

Based on the analyses described above, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that the 

benefits of the proposed standards to the 

Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, consumer LCC 

savings, and emission reductions) 

would outweigh the burdens (loss of 

INPV for manufacturers and LCC 

increases for some consumers). 

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 the more-stringent energy 

efficiency levels would outweigh the 

projected benefits. Based on 

consideration of the public comments 

DOE receives in response to this notice 

and related information collected and 

analyzed during the course of this 

rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt 

energy efficiency levels presented in 

this notice 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 today’s proposal, as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for residential 

dehumidifiers. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part B of EPCA established 

the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles, a program covering most 

major household appliances 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘covered 

products’’), which includes the types of 

residential dehumidifiers that are the 

subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 

2(a)(6295(cc))) EPCA, as amended, 

prescribes energy conservation 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31651 

15 Dehumidifiers are defined as self-contained, 

electrically operated, and mechanically encased 

assemblies consisting of: (1) A refrigerated surface 

(evaporator) that condenses moisture from the 

atmosphere; (2) a refrigerating system, including an 

electric motor; (3) an air-circulating fan; and (4) a 

means for collecting or disposing of the condensate. 

(42 U.S.C. 6291(34)) 

standards for residential 

dehumidifiers 15 manufactured on or 

after October 1, 2007, and more 

stringent energy conservation standards 

for residential dehumidifiers 

manufactured on or after October 1, 

2012. (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)) Under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(m), the agency must 

periodically review established energy 

conservation standards for a covered 

product. Under this requirement, such 

review must be conducted no later than 

6 years from the issuance of a final rule 

establishing or amending a standard for 

a covered product. 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

products consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards; and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. The Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) is primarily 

responsible for labeling, and DOE 

implements the remainder of the 

program. 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. 6293(b)) 

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use the prescribed DOE test procedure 

as the basis for certifying to DOE that 

their products comply with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA and 

when making representations to the 

public regarding the energy use or 

efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE 

must use these test procedures to 

determine whether the products comply 

with standards adopted pursuant to 

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

procedures for residential dehumidifiers 

currently appear at title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, 

subpart B, appendix X. 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products. Any 

new or amended standard for a covered 

product must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that 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 residential dehumidifiers, if 

no test procedure has been established 

for the product, or (2) if DOE determines 

by rule that the proposed 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, and 

after receiving comments on the 

proposed standard, 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 by, to the greatest extent 

practicable, considering the following 

seven 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 imposition 

of the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy, or as applicable, water, savings 

likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the imposition of 

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 imposition of 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, as codified, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

savings during the first year that the 

consumer will receive as a result of the 

standard, as calculated under the 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

EPCA, as codified, also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)) Also, the ‘‘Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard 

under this section if the Secretary finds 

(and publishes such finding) that 

interested persons have established by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the 

standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States in 

any covered product type (or class) of 

performance characteristics (including 

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 

and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the 

United States at the time of the 

Secretary’s finding.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4)) 

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) 

specifies requirements when 

promulgating a standard for a covered 

product that has two or more 

subcategories. DOE must specify a 

different standard level for a type or 

class of covered 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. 

6294(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)) 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

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

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

16 Industry data track shipments from 

manufacturers into the distribution chain. Data on 

national unit retail sales are lacking, but are 

presumed to be close to shipments under normal 

circumstances. 

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 residential dehumidifiers 

address standby mode and off mode 

energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE 

intends to adopt a single energy 

conservation standard that addresses 

active, off, and standby modes. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

EPCA prescribes energy conservation 

standards for residential dehumidifiers 

manufactured on or after October 1, 

2012. In a final rule published on March 

23, 2009, DOE codified these standards 

at 10 CFR 430.32(v)(2). 74 FR 12058. 

The current standards are set forth in 

Table II.1 below. 

TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIERS * 

Product class * 

(pints/day) 

Energy factor 

(EF) ** 

(L/kWh) 

Up to 35.00 ......................... 1.35 

35.01–45.00 ........................ 1.50 

45.01–54.00 ........................ 1.60 

54.01–75.00 ........................ 1.70 

75.00 or more ..................... 2.5 

* Capacity in pints/day is measured according to the current DOE test procedure. 

** EF is a measure of the water removed 

from the air per unit of energy consumed by a 

dehumidifier and is calculated according to the 

current DOE test procedure. 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Residential Dehumidifiers 

As amended by the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 (EPACT 2005), EPCA 

established the first energy conservation 

standards for residential dehumidifiers 

manufactured as of October 1, 2007, 

based on the EF metric. EISA 2007 

subsequently amended EPCA to 

prescribe new energy conservation 

standards for dehumidifiers 

manufactured on or after October 1, 

2012. In a final rule published on March 

23, 2009, DOE codified the standards at 

10 CFR 430.32(v)(2). 74 FR 12058. 

DOE initiated today’s rulemaking 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1), which 

requires DOE, no later than 6 years after 

issuance of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, to publish either 

a notice of determination that standards 

for the product do not need to be 

amended, or a NOPR that includes new 

proposed energy conservation 

standards. As noted above, DOE issued 

the last final rule for residential 

dehumidifiers on March 23, 2009. 

DOE initiated this rulemaking by 

issuing an analytical Framework 

Document, ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Framework 

Document for Residential 

Dehumidifiers.’’ 77 FR 49739 (Aug. 17, 

2012). The Framework Document 

explained the issues, analyses, and 

process that DOE anticipated using to 

develop energy conservation standards 

for residential dehumidifiers. 

DOE held a public meeting on 

September 24, 2012, to solicit comments 

from interested parties regarding the 

Framework Document and DOE’s 

proposed analytical approach. DOE 

sought feedback from interested parties 

on these subjects and provided 

information regarding the rulemaking 

process that DOE would follow. 

Interested parties discussed the 

following major issues at the public 

meeting: Rulemaking schedule; test 

procedure revisions; product classes; 

technology options; efficiency levels 

(ELs); and approaches for each of the 

analyses performed by DOE as part of 

the rulemaking process. 

Comments received following the 

publication of the framework document 

helped DOE identify and resolve issues 

related to the subsequent preliminary 

analysis. In the preliminary analysis, 

DOE conducted in-depth technical 

analyses in the following areas: (1) 

Engineering; (2) markups to determine 

product price; (3) energy use; (4) lifecycle cost and payback period; and (5) 

national impacts. The preliminary 

technical support document (TSD) that 

presented the methodology and results 

of each of these analyses is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!document

Detail;D=EERE-2012-BT-STD-0027- 

0015. 

DOE also conducted, and included in 

the preliminary TSD, several other 

analyses that supported the major 

analyses or were expanded upon for 

today’s NOPR. These analyses included: 

(1) The market and technology 

assessment; (2) the screening analysis, 

which contributes to the engineering 

analysis; and (3) the shipments 

analysis,16 which contributes to the LCC 

and PBP analysis and national impact 

analysis (NIA). In addition to these 

analyses, DOE began preliminary work 

on the manufacturer impact analysis 

and identified the methods to be used 

for the consumer subgroup analysis, the 

emissions analysis, the employment 

impact analysis, the regulatory impact 

analysis, and the utility impact analysis. 

DOE published a notice of public 

meeting and availability of the 

preliminary TSD on May 22, 2014. 79 

FR 29380. DOE subsequently held a 

public meeting on June 13, 2014, to 

discuss and receive comments on the 

preliminary TSD. DOE received 

comments on topics including: Wholehome dehumidifier coverage and test 

procedures, product classes, design 

options, ELs, use of experience curves, 

shipments projections, social cost of 

carbon estimates and the associated 

monetization of carbon dioxide, and 

small business impacts. After reviewing 

these comments, DOE gathered 

additional information, held further 

discussions with manufacturers, 

performed product testing, and 

completed and revised the various 

analyses described in the preliminary 

analysis. The results of these analyses 

are presented in this NOPR. 

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed this proposed rule 

after considering verbal 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. Product Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered products into product 

classes by the type of energy used or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

features that justify differing standards. 

In making a determination whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard, DOE must consider 

such factors as the utility to the 

consumer of the feature and other 

factors DOE determines are appropriate. 

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

Existing energy conservation 

standards divide residential 

dehumidifiers into five product classes 

based on the number of pints per day of 

moisture that the product removes from 

ambient air at test conditions, as 

measured by the current DOE test 

procedure. In this rulemaking, DOE is 

proposing new product classes that 

differentiate between portable and 

whole-home residential dehumidifiers. 

For portable residential dehumidifiers, 

DOE is proposing the following three 

product classes based on the product 

capacity in number of pints per day of 

moisture removed from ambient air at 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31653 

17Note that the test conditions for the proposed 

product classes are different from those for the 

existing product classes. 

18Product case volume is the rectangular volume 

that the product case occupies, exclusive of any 

duct attachment collars or other external 

components. 

19For more information on the ENERGY STAR 

program, please visit www.energystar.gov. 

20 ‘‘Energy Star Program Requirements for 

Dehumidifiers’’, Version 1.0, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), available online at: 

www.energystar.gov/products/specs/system/files/

DehumProgReqV1.0.pdf. 

test conditions 17: (1) 30.00 pints/day or 

less; (2) 30.01 to 45.00 pints/day; and (3) 

45.01 pints/day or more. For wholehome residential dehumidifiers, DOE is 

proposing the following two product 

classes based on product case volume: 18

(1) less than or equal to 8.0 ft3; and (2) 

greater than 8.0 ft3. 

The product classes for portable 

residential dehumidifiers analyzed for 

today’s NOPR are different from those 

examined in DOE’s initial analysis, 

while the product classes for wholehome residential dehumidifiers are the 

same. DOE initially analyzed five 

product classes for portable residential 

dehumidifiers based on product 

capacity. Due, in part, to comments 

received on the preliminary TSD, DOE 

is proposing only the three product 

classes discussed above. Comments 

received relating to the scope of 

coverage and product classes are 

discussed in section IV.A of this 

proposed rule. 

B. Test Procedure 

EPCA specifies that the dehumidifier 

test criteria used under the ENERGY 

STAR19 program in effect as of January 

1, 2001,20 must serve as the basis for the 

DOE test procedure for dehumidifiers, 

unless revised by DOE. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(13)) The ENERGY STAR test 

criteria required that American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI)/Association 

of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM) Standard DH–1, 

‘‘Dehumidifiers,’’ be used to measure 

capacity while the Canadian Standards 

Association (CAN/CSA) standard CAN/ 

CSA–C749–1994 (R2005), ‘‘Performance 

of Dehumidifiers,’’ be used to calculate 

the Energy Factor (EF). The version of 

AHAM Standard DH–1 in use at the 

time the ENERGY STAR test criteria 

were adopted was AHAM Standard DH– 

1–1992. In 2006, DOE adopted these test 

criteria, along with related definitions 

and tolerances, as its test procedure for 

dehumidifiers at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix X. 71 FR 71340, 

71347, 71366–68 (Dec. 8, 2006). 

On October 31, 2012, DOE published 

a final rule to establish a new test 

procedure for dehumidifiers that 

references ANSI/AHAM Standard DH– 

1–2008, ‘‘Dehumidifiers,’’ (ANSI/AHAM 

DH–1–2008) for both energy use and 

capacity measurements. 77 FR 65995 

(Oct. 31, 2012). The final rule also 

adopted standby and off mode 

provisions that satisfy the requirement 

in EPCA for DOE to include measures of 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption in its test procedures for 

residential products, if technically 

feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) This 

new DOE test procedure, codified at that 

time at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix X1, established a new metric, 

IEF, which incorporates measures of 

active, standby, and off mode energy 

use. 

DOE subsequently removed the 

existing test procedures at appendix X 

and redesignated the test procedures at 

appendix X1 as appendix X. 79 FR 7366 

(Feb. 7, 2014). Any representations of 

energy use, including standby mode or 

off mode energy consumption, or 

efficiency of portable dehumidifiers 

must be made in accordance with the 

results of testing pursuant to the 

redesignated appendix X. 

On May 21, 2014, DOE published a 

NOPR proposing further amendments to 

residential dehumidifier test 

procedures. 79 FR 29272. In addition to 

making clarifications and corrections, 

the proposed amendments would create 

a new appendix, appendix X1, which 

would: (1) Require certain active mode 

testing at a lower ambient temperature; 

(2) add a measure of fan-only mode 

energy consumption in the IEF metric; 

and (3) include testing methodology and 

measures of performance for wholehome dehumidifiers. 

On February 4, 2015, DOE published 

a supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNOPR). 80 FR 5994. In the 

SNOPR, DOE maintained its proposals 

from the NOPR, except that DOE 

proposed: (1) Various adjustments and 

clarifications to the whole-home 

dehumidifier test setup and conduct; (2) 

a method to determine whole-home 

dehumidifier case volume; (3) a revision 

to the method for measuring energy use 

in fan-only operation; (4) a clarification 

to the relative humidity and capacity 

equations; and (5) additional technical 

corrections and clarifications. 

In response to the May 2014 Notice, 

June 2014 public meeting, and February 

2015 SNOPR, DOE received comments 

from interested parties related to the test 

procedure. DOE addressed these issues 

in the test procedure final rule to 

establish appendix X1, and based its 

analysis in this notice on capacities and 

efficiencies determined according to the 

appendix X1 test procedure. 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening 

analysis based on information gathered 

on all current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the products or 

equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. 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. (10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(i)) 

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; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. (10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(ii)–(iv)) Section IV.B of this 

proposed rule discusses the results of 

the screening analysis for residential 

dehumidifiers, particularly the designs 

DOE considered, those it screened out, 

and those that are the basis for the 

standards considered in this 

rulemaking. For further details on the 

screening analysis for this rulemaking, 

see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

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

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

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

(max-tech) improvements in energy 

efficiency for residential 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 rulemaking are described in 

section IV.C.1.b of this proposed rule 

and in chapter 5, section 5.3.2 of the 

NOPR TSD. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

21Each TSL is comprised of specific efficiency 

levels for each product class. The TSLs considered 

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

also conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers 

impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period. 

22 In the past DOE presented energy savings 

results for only the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance. In the calculation of economic 

impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost 

savings measured over the entire lifetime of 

products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has 

chosen to modify its presentation of national energy 

savings to be consistent with the approach used for 

its national economic analysis. 

23The 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). 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each trial standard level (TSL), 

DOE projected energy savings from 

application of the TSL to residential 

dehumidifiers purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the first full year 

of compliance with the proposed 

standards (2019–2048).21 The savings 

are measured over the entire lifetime of 

residential dehumidifiers purchased in 

the 30-year analysis period.22 DOE 

quantified the energy savings 

attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case. The base case represents a 

projection of energy consumption that 

reflects how the market for a product 

would likely evolve in the absence of 

amended mandatory efficiency 

standards. 

DOE uses its NIA spreadsheet models 

to estimate energy savings from 

potential amended standards. The NIA 

spreadsheet model (described in section 

IV.H of this notice) calculates savings in 

site energy, which is the energy directly 

consumed by products at the locations 

where they are used. Based on the site 

energy, DOE calculates national energy 

savings (NES) in terms of primary 

energy savings at the site or at power 

plants, and also in terms of full-fuelcycle (FFC) energy savings. The FFC 

metric includes the energy consumed in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

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

petroleum fuels), and thus presents a 

more complete picture of the impacts of 

energy efficiency standards.23 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 proposed rule. 

2. Significance of Savings 

To adopt any new or amended 

standard for a covered product, DOE 

must determine that such action would 

result in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the 

term ‘‘significant’’ is not defined in the 

Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. 

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. 

Cir. 1985), opined that Congress 

intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings in 

the context of EPCA to be savings that 

were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ The energy 

savings for all of the TSLs considered in 

this rulemaking, including the proposed 

standards, are nontrivial, and, therefore, 

DOE considers them ‘‘significant’’ 

within the meaning of section 325 of 

EPCA. 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted above, 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)) The following 

sections discuss how DOE has 

addressed each of those seven factors in 

this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a 

potential amended standard on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts a 

manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as 

discussed in section IV.J of this 

proposed rule. 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) Industry net present value 

(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 NPV of 

the economic impacts applicable to a 

particular rulemaking. DOE also 

evaluates the LCC impacts of potential 

standards on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be affected 

disproportionately by a national 

standard. 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

to Increase in Price 

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 the 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. For its analysis, DOE 

assumes that consumers will purchase 

the covered products in the first full 

year of compliance with amended 

standards. 

The LCC savings for the considered 

ELs are calculated relative to a base case 

that reflects projected market trends in 

the absence of amended standards. DOE 

identifies the percentage of consumers 

estimated to receive LCC savings or 

experience an LCC increase, in addition 

to the average LCC savings associated 

with a particular standard level. DOE’s 

LCC and PBP analyses are discussed in 

further detail in section IV.F. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

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

As discussed in section IV.H.1, DOE 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31655 

uses the NIA spreadsheet to project 

national energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing classes of products, 

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 proposed rule would 

not reduce the utility or performance of 

the products under consideration in this 

rulemaking. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from a 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 Department of Justice (DOJ) provide 

its determination on this issue. DOE 

will publish and respond to the 

Attorney General’s determination in the 

final rule. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

DOE also considers the need for 

national energy 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. 

The proposed standards also are 

likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with energy 

production. DOE reports the emissions 

impacts from the proposed standards, 

and from each TSL it considered, in 

section IV.K of this proposed rule. DOE 

also reports estimates of the economic 

value of emissions reductions resulting 

from the considered TSLs, as discussed 

in section IV.L. 

g. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, 

in determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any 

other factors that the Secretary deems to 

be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent 

interested parties submit any relevant 

information regarding economic 

justification that does not fit into the 

other categories described above, 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 PBP 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.10 of this 

proposed rule. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion 

DOE used three spreadsheet tools to 

estimate the impact of today’s proposed 

standards. The first spreadsheet 

calculates LCCs and PBPs of potential 

standards. The second provides 

shipments forecasts, and then calculates 

national energy savings and net present 

value of total consumer costs and 

savings expected to result from potential 

standards. Finally, DOE assessed 

manufacturer impacts, largely through 

use of the Government Regulatory 

Impact Model (GRIM). 

Additionally, DOE estimated the 

impacts on utilities and the 

environment that would be likely to 

result from potential amended standards 

for residential dehumidifiers. DOE used 

a version of EIA’s National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility 

and environmental analyses. The NEMS 

simulates the energy sector of the U.S. 

economy. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its 

AEO, a widely-known energy forecast 

for the United States. NEMS offers a 

sophisticated picture of the effect of 

standards, because it accounts for the 

interactions between the various energy 

supply and demand sectors and the 

economy as a whole. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information 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. DOE’s market and 

technology analysis activity includes 

both quantitative and qualitative 

assessments, based primarily on 

publicly available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this 

residential dehumidifier rulemaking 

include: (1) A determination of the 

scope of the rulemaking and product 

classes; (2) manufacturers and industry 

structure; (3) existing efficiency 

programs; (4) product shipments; (5) 

market and industry trends; and (6) 

technologies that could improve the 

energy efficiency of residential 

dehumidifiers. The key findings of 

DOE’s market assessment are 

summarized below. See chapter 3 of the 

NOPR TSD for further discussion of the 

market and technology assessment. 

1. Definition and Scope of Coverage 

EPCA defines a dehumidifier as 

product that is self-contained, 

electrically operated, mechanically 

encased, and a product that incorporates 

a refrigerated surface to condense 

moisture from the atmosphere. It further 

defines it as a refrigerating system with 

an electric motor; a fan for air 

circulation; and a means for collecting 

or disposing of the condensate. (42 

U.S.C. 6291(34)) In the concurrent test 

procedure rulemaking, DOE is clarifying 

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. 

Aprilaire Inc. (Aprilaire) commented 

to suggest that the EPCA definition for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31656 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

a dehumidifier is too broad, and 

believes that it would include all 

products that provide means of 

dehumidification, including portable, 

window, and central air conditioners. 

Aprilaire further suggested that 

products such as a refrigerator could 

meet the EPCA definition even though 

refrigerators are not intended to 

dehumidify the living space. Therefore, 

Aprilaire requested that DOE provide a 

more specific definition for 

dehumidifiers. (Aprilaire, No. 20 at p. 3) 

DOE notes that the definition for 

dehumidifier established in the 

concurrent test procedure rulemaking 

specifically excludes portable air 

conditioners, room air conditioners, and 

packaged terminal air conditioners 

because these products also deliver 

conditioned air to a space such as a 

room similar to a dehumidifier, in 

contrast to a refrigerator which provides 

cooling to a cabinet. DOE has already 

established energy conservation 

standards for room air conditioners and 

refrigerators separately under EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6295(b) and (cc)), and is 

currently considering new standards for 

portable air conditioners in a separate 

rulemaking. The energy conservation 

standards for these products address 

energy use in active, standby, and off 

modes. 

In the concurrent test procedure 

rulemaking, DOE is also adding 

definitions to 10 CFR 430.2 for portable 

dehumidifiers and whole-home 

dehumidifiers. 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. 

Therma-Stor LLC (Therma-Stor) 

expressed concern that DOE is 

proposing to subdivide dehumidifiers 

into ‘‘portable’’ and ‘‘whole-home’’ 

dehumidifiers, as defined by their 

intended application or installation. 

According to Therma-Stor, this 

approach may not provide clear 

differentiation among products, and 

therefore DOE should revise the 

proposed definitions of each product 

type to accurately define specific 

attributes to avoid confusion in the 

marketplace. (Therma-Stor, No. 21 at p. 

1) Due to the many similarities between 

certain portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers and the inability to 

determine their intended use through 

examination of the product, DOE 

determined that design features 

associated with installation, namely the 

attachment of ducts, are the most 

reliable method for differentiation. The 

definitions established in the concurrent 

test procedure rulemaking separate the 

product types based on this 

differentiation. For those dehumidifiers 

that may be optionally configured in 

either manner, DOE would require that 

each configuration of these products be 

certified under corresponding portable 

and whole-home dehumidifier energy 

conservation standards. 

2. Product Classes 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered products into product 

classes by the type of energy used or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

features that justify a different standard. 

In making a determination whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard, DOE must consider 

such factors as the utility to the 

consumer of the feature and other 

factors DOE determines are appropriate. 

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

Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)(2), 

residential dehumidifiers, manufactured 

on or after October 1, 2012, are divided 

into five product classes based on the 

capacity of the unit in pints of water 

extracted per day: 

TABLE IV.1—CURRENT DEHUMIDIFIER

PRODUCT CLASSES

Capacity 

(pints/day) 

Up to 35.00. 

35.01–45.00. 

45.01–54.00. 

54.01–75.00. 

75.00 or more. 

a. Preliminary Analysis Proposals 

In the preliminary analysis conducted 

for this rulemaking, DOE considered the 

following portable dehumidifier product 

classes that were based on the existing 

product classes, but with capacities 

adjusted for the lower ambient 

temperature proposed in the May 2014 

test procedure NOPR: 

TABLE IV.2—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

PORTABLE DEHUMIDIFIER PRODUCT

CLASSES

Capacity 

(pints/day) 

20.00 or less. 

20.01 to 30.00. 

30.01 to 35.00. 

35.01 to 45.00. 

45.01 or more. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE also 

considered two product classes for 

whole-home dehumidifiers, 

differentiated by product case volume. 

TABLE IV.3—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

WHOLE-HOME DEHUMIDIFIER PRODUCT CLASSES

Product Class 

(case volume, cubic feet) 

less than or equal to 8.0. 

greater than 8.0. 

b. Comments and Responses 

Aprilaire commented that portable 

and whole-home dehumidifiers are two 

different classes of product, in their 

construction as well as their intended 

application and function. Aprilaire 

commented that the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) technical 

report, NREL/TP–5500–61076, 

highlights the difference between 

portables and whole-home 

dehumidifiers, not only in application, 

size, and capacity, but also in 

performance. Aprilaire expressed 

concern that due to these many 

differences in the two types of 

dehumidifier products, the inclusion of 

both into one rule and test procedure 

may not be appropriate. Therefore, 

Aprilaire suggested that DOE not 

consider whole-home dehumidifiers in 

the rulemaking and test procedures at 

this time. (Aprilaire No. 20 at pp. 1–3) 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Southern California Gas Company, San 

Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern 

California Edison (California InvestorOwned Utilities (IOUs)) supported 

extending coverage to whole-home 

dehumidifiers and regulating them as a 

separate product class from portable 

dehumidifiers, as they are designed and 

installed differently in order to properly 

take advantage of ducted configurations. 

According to the California IOUs, 

whole-home dehumidifiers require more 

energy than portable units, and the 

difference in energy use between high 

and low efficiency products is 

significant. The California IOUs further 

stated that whole-home dehumidifiers 

have a longer lifetime than portable 

dehumidifiers, and that due to the 

longer lifetime and large difference in 

energy use between whole-home 

dehumidifiers of varying efficiency, it is 

important to ensure that these products 

are efficient to realize savings for the 

duration of the expected lifetime. 

(California IOUs, No. 24 at pp. 1–2) 

DOE notes that although portable and 

whole-home dehumidifiers have 

different applications and overall 

performance, they both: (1) Fall under 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31657 

24A notation in the form ‘‘ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 25 at p. 16’’ identifies an oral 

comment that DOE received during the June 13, 

2014, residential dehumidifier energy conservation 

standards preliminary analysis public meeting. Oral 

comments were recorded in the public meeting 

transcript and are available the residential 

dehumidifier energy conservation standards 

rulemaking docket (Docket No. EERE–2012–BT– 

STD–0027). This particular notation refers to a 

comment: (1) Made by Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project during the public meeting; (2) 

recorded in document number 25, which is the 

public meeting transcript that is filed in the docket 

of this energy conservation standards rulemaking; 

and (3) which appears on page 16 of document 

number 25. 

the statutory definition of a 

dehumidifier; (2) provide the same 

dehumidification function: and (3) can 

be characterized with the same energy 

efficiency performance metric. 

Therefore, DOE believes it is 

appropriate to address both portable and 

whole-home dehumidifiers in the same 

rulemaking. DOE, however, is 

considering separate proposed 

efficiency standards levels for each 

product type. The considered product 

classes are split between portable and 

whole-home dehumidifiers, as defined 

according to the definitions provided in 

section IV.A.1 of this notice, with 

further divisions based on product 

capacity or volume. In addition, DOE 

established, in a separate test procedure 

rulemaking, unique testing setups and 

methodology for the two product types. 

The California IOUs commented that 

there are a group of products in the 65 

to 75 pint/day capacity range with 

significantly higher efficiencies than 

other dehumidifiers with capacities 

under 75 pints/day. The California IOUs 

suggested that DOE analyze these 

products to understand their technology 

options and whether or not lowercapacity units can achieve similar 

efficiencies, or whether a separate 

product class is necessary to develop 

more appropriate energy conservation 

standards for those products. (California 

IOUs No. 24 at pp. 3–4) DOE 

investigated the models with higher 

efficiencies near 75 pints/day rated 

capacity (as measured according to the 

current test procedure in 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix X). DOE notes 

that these products typically have 

construction similar to whole-home 

dehumidifiers, but in a portable 

configuration. They include larger heat 

exchangers (and for some units, an inlet 

air-to-air heat exchanger), highervolumetric flow rate blowers, and 

higher-capacity compressors. These 

units are currently rated at capacities 

between 65 and 75 pints/day, and 

although these capacities would 

decrease under the appendix X1 test 

procedure, DOE expects, based on its 

investigative testing, that the units 

would likely be classified in the 

proposed 45.01 pints/day or more 

product class. Accordingly, DOE 

considered higher efficiencies for this 

product class in this NOPR analysis 

than for the lower-capacity portable 

product classes (see section IV.C.1 of 

this proposed rule). 

Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP) asked why DOE 

proposed multiple product classes for 

portable dehumidifiers with capacities 

less than 45 pints/day. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 16) 24

ASAP also asked if there is consumer 

utility associated with either smaller 

capacities or smaller chassis. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 

18) In a joint comment, ASAP, Alliance 

to Save Energy, American Council for an 

Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumers 

Union, National Consumer Law Center, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, and 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 

(hereinafter the ‘‘Joint Commenters’’), as 

well as the California IOUs, supported 

a single product class for all portable 

dehumidifiers with capacities less than 

45 pints/day because they claimed that 

DOE had not demonstrated that 

dehumidification capacity is a feature 

that justifies a lower standard level. 

They also noted the availability of 

dehumidifiers over a range of capacities 

that meet or exceed the current ENERGY 

STAR specification (EF of 1.85 for all 

dehumidifiers up to 75 pints/day), 

which, according to the Joint 

Commenters, suggests that lowercapacity dehumidifiers may achieve the 

same efficiencies as higher-capacity 

models. (California IOUs, No. 24 at p. 2; 

Joint Commenters, No. 23 at pp. 1–2) 

The California IOUs noted that many 

commercially available lower-capacity 

products are able to meet the ENERGY 

STAR performance levels, but that nonqualified products are typically 

clustered right at the Federal standard 

level, resulting in a significant gap in 

performance. According to the 

California IOUs, this large gap is not 

apparent for higher capacity units, and 

highlights the increased energy savings 

potential of requiring lower-capacity 

units to meet the same energy 

conservation standards as highercapacity units. (California IOUs, No. 24 

at p. 3) 

The Joint Commenters also stated that 

DOE determined there is no inherent 

relationship between capacity and 

efficiency, and that efficiency is instead 

primarily a function of chassis size. The 

Joint Commenters further stated that the 

possibility that some manufacturers’ 

current chassis components may make it 

difficult for them to meet higher ELs at 

certain capacities does not justify the 

use of separate product classes to shield 

those manufacturers from more 

stringent standards. The Joint 

Commenters further stated that, at most, 

the cost (not the ability) to meet a 

standard level is different from 

manufacturer to manufacturer. (Joint 

Commenters, No 23 at p. 2) The 

California IOUs commented that by 

‘‘right-sizing’’ the chassis, 

manufacturers can produce highefficiency dehumidifiers of any 

capacity. Thus, all product classes 

below 75 pints/day (based on the 

current test procedure in appendix X) 

should be consolidated into a single 

class. (California IOUs, No. 24 at p. 3) 

AHAM supported maintaining several 

product classes for portable 

dehumidifiers, and agreed that DOE 

should not collapse portable 

dehumidifier product classes into two 

product classes (less than 75 pints/day 

and greater than 75 pints/day according 

to the current test conditions). AHAM 

also agreed that maintaining several 

product classes would allow DOE to 

individually consider appropriate ELs 

in each class that would take into 

account unique performance factors and 

costs. (AHAM, No. 22 at pp. 1–2) 

AHAM commented that it was 

concerned that the 65 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) ambient temperature test 

condition in the proposed test 

procedure for residential dehumidifiers, 

as opposed to the current 80 °F ambient 

temperature, would increase test-to-test 

variation and make it more difficult to 

establish product classes based on 

capacity thresholds. Therefore, AHAM 

stated that it may be necessary to 

combine two of the lower-capacity 

product classes, for a total of four 

portable dehumidifier product classes. 

(AHAM, No. 22 at p. 2) Therma-Stor 

commented that the number of product 

classes may need to be reduced or 

increased to reflect the (relative) range 

of ratings. (Therma-Stor, No. 21 at p. 1) 

While all current product classes are 

able to reach similar maximum 

efficiencies under current test 

procedures, DOE observed that the two 

lowest capacity portable product classes 

considered for the preliminary analysis 

(20.00 pints/day or less and 20.01 to 

30.00 pints/day) could not reach the 

same maximum IEF as the other product 

classes when tested under the appendix 

X1 test procedure. This suggested that 

there may be an inherent trend between 

capacity and efficiency at lower ambient 

test temperatures. 

DOE also notes that product sizes and 

weights vary between products 

currently available on the market. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31658 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

25The Compliance Certification Database is 

available at: http://www.regulations.doe.gov/

certification-data/. 

Lower-capacity units typically use a 

smaller chassis that limits the sizes of 

internal components such as heat 

exchangers. In the sample of units DOE 

selected for the engineering analysis, 

DOE observed that portable 

dehumidifiers with rated capacities 

below 45 pints/day typically had 

smaller chassis and had an average 

weight of 33 pounds. Portable 

dehumidifiers currently rated with 

capacities between 45 pints/day and 75 

pints/day typically had larger chassis 

and had an average weight of 45 

pounds. DOE believes the 12-pound 

average increase in product weight in 

moving to a larger case would reduce 

portability (i.e., increase difficulty 

moving the unit within the home), 

which would negatively impact 

consumer utility. 

DOE also observed that there was no 

key difference in product characteristics 

for the two product classes analyzed for 

the preliminary analysis that DOE 

proposes to combine into a single 

product class in this NOPR. The 20.00 

pints/day or less and 20.01 to 30.00 

pints/day product classes had similar 

product characteristics and were able to 

achieve similar ELs under both the 

current and appendix X1 test 

procedures. Similarly, the 30.01 to 35.00 

pints/day and 35.01 to 45.00 pints/day 

product classes had similar construction 

and measured efficiencies. For this 

NOPR analysis, DOE proposes combing 

the four lowest-capacity portable 

product classes analyzed in the 

preliminary analysis into two: 30.00 

pints/day or less and 30.01 to 45.00 

pints/day. DOE proposes maintaining 

the 45.01 pints/day or more product 

class as considered in the preliminary 

analysis because the larger chassis size 

and weight typically associated with 

these products would allow for 

consideration of certain design options, 

such as inlet pre-cooling heat 

exchangers, that would be infeasible in 

lower-capacity portable dehumidifiers. 

AHAM stated that because 

dehumidifiers are typically rated at even 

number capacities, DOE should use odd 

number boundaries for the product 

classes, especially as standards become 

more stringent. AHAM commented that 

DOE’s proposal to define product class 

boundaries at even numbers may cause 

findings of noncompliance simply due 

to test procedure variation. (AHAM, 

Test Procedure NOPR, No. 7 at p, 6) 

Based on a review of the products 

certified in DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Database, DOE observed 

that approximately 75 percent of 

certified units are rated at a capacity 

that is a multiple of 10.25 However, 

these capacity ratings are based on the 

current test procedures, and the 

certified capacities would change under 

the appendix X1 test procedures. 

Therefore, DOE concludes that an a 

priori selection of either an even or odd 

product class capacity threshold would 

not be warranted, and instead proposes 

to define product class boundaries 

based on the capacities associated with 

chassis sizes and weights that provide 

different consumer utility. 

Therma-Stor commented that the 

current product classes, which are based 

on water removal capacity at 80 °F and 

60-percent relative humidity, should be 

revised to reflect new capacity values if 

different ambient rating test conditions 

are chosen. (Therma-Stor, No. 21 at p. 

1) As discussed previously, DOE 

adjusted its portable product classes to 

account for the updated test conditions 

at 65 °F ambient temperature. 

Aprilaire agreed with using the 

volume of whole-home dehumidifiers as 

a product class differentiator, because 

installed location is one of the 

restrictions on these units rather than 

their capacity. However, Aprilaire 

requested clarification on the selection 

of 8.0 cubic feet as the threshold 

between product classes, and whether 

there was any relationship between this 

threshold and product capacity. 

Aprilaire commented that the 

differentiation of whole-home product 

classes based on case volume less than 

or greater than 8.0 cubic feet appears to 

be arbitrary and only based on products 

on the market today, and that product 

sizes exist today due to application and 

size constraints incurred during or after 

installation. Aprilaire noted its concern 

that the market for whole-home 

dehumidifiers and potential 

applications were not totally 

understood, and placing an arbitrary 

threshold may limit innovation and new 

product applications. Aprilaire stated 

that doing so would negatively impact 

the ability to obtain whole-home energyefficient humidity control. (Aprilaire, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 

14–15; Aprilaire, No. 20 at p. 3) ThermaStor also commented that basing wholehome dehumidifier product classes on 

case volume is arbitrary, and would be 

confusing in the marketplace. ThermaStor suggested that whole-home product 

classes be based upon the same capacity 

metric as portable dehumidifiers. 

(Therma-Stor, No. 21 at p.1) 

DOE considered whole-home product 

class differentiation based on those 

products that are installed in spaceconstrained locations. Many of the 

design options associated with 

improving efficiencies for these 

products, such as larger heat exchangers 

or an inlet pre-cooling heat exchanger, 

require making the unit physically 

larger. Whole-home units that are not 

space constrained may incorporate all of 

these design options and reach higher 

efficiencies. DOE observed that products 

available on the market with case 

volumes greater than 8.0 cubic feet are 

able to incorporate additional design 

options and reach higher efficiencies 

than products with volumes at or less 

than 8.0 cubic feet. DOE also expects 

that products with volumes of 8.0 cubic 

feet or less would be able to meet 

consumers’ needs for space-constrained 

installations. DOE notes that switching 

to a capacity-based product class 

differentiation, as proposed for portable 

dehumidifier product classes, would not 

ensure products would maintain the 

smaller case sizes. Whole-home units at 

lower capacities could increase case size 

to incorporate all available design 

options and maximize heat exchanger 

sizes to reach high efficiencies, but the 

increased case size would also limit 

consumer applications. For these 

reasons, DOE proposes to maintain the 

two whole-home dehumidifier product 

classes based on case volume: Less than 

or equal to 8.0 cubic feet and greater 

than 8.0 cubic feet. 

c. NOPR Proposals 

In summary, DOE proposes 

classifying portable products into three 

product classes, by merging two of the 

current five portable product classes 

into the other three, and classifying 

whole-home dehumidifiers in two 

product classes based on case volume, 

resulting in the following product 

classes: 

TABLE IV.4—DEHUMIDIFIER PRODUCT

CLASSES

Portable (pints/day) 

30.00 or less. 

30.01 to 45.00. 

45.01 or more. 

Whole-home (case volume, cubic feet) 

less than or equal to 8.0. 

greater than 8.0. 

In the remaining sections of this 

NOPR, presented product capacities and 

efficiencies are consistent with the 

appendix X1 test procedures. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31659 

3. Technology Options 

In the preliminary market analysis 

and technology assessment, DOE 

identified 14 technology options that 

would be expected to improve the 

efficiency of residential dehumidifiers: 

IV.5—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR

DEHUMIDIFIERS

1. Built-in hygrometer/humidistat. 

2. Improved compressor efficiency. 

3. Improved condenser and evaporator performance. 

4. Improved controls. 

5. Improved defrost methods. 

6. Improved demand-defrost controls. 

7. Improved fan and fan-motor efficiency. 

8. Improved flow-control devices. 

9. Low-standby-loss electronic controls. 

10. Washable air filters. 

11. Pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchanger. 

12. Heat pipes. 

13. Improved refrigeration system insulation. 

14. Refrigerant-desiccant systems. 

In response to the preliminary 

analysis, two commenters suggested 

additional technology options that DOE 

should consider, but the agency has 

determined that neither option merits 

further consideration. First, the Joint 

Commenters and California IOUs stated 

that DOE should include chassis size as 

a technology option for improving 

efficiency in the engineering analysis if 

it maintains separate portable 

dehumidifier product classes. 

(California IOUs, No. 24 at p. 2; Joint 

Commenters, No. 23 at p. 2) DOE notes 

that increasing chassis size does not 

itself increase product efficiency, but it 

allows the product to house larger heat 

exchangers, which does improve 

efficiency. DOE included larger heat 

exchangers as a design option, and 

considered any necessary chassis 

changes associated with the larger 

components in the engineering analysis. 

Second, the California IOUs 

commented that DOE should consider 

the potential benefits from networked 

smart controls, which would allow 

dehumidifiers to benefit from time-ofuse metering and other demand 

management schemes to maximize the 

time-value of energy production in 

participating utilities. They noted that 

as an added benefit, advanced sensors 

with more sophisticated reporting 

capabilities would alert the user when 

the unit begins to degrade significantly, 

requiring maintenance or replacement. 

(California IOUs, No. 24 at p. 5) The 

current and recently established DOE 

test procedures for dehumidifiers 

measure the site energy consumption in 

typical operation and do not reflect 

potential overall benefits related to 

demand management enabled by smart 

controls. Products incorporating smart 

controls would have the same (or lower) 

measured efficiencies according to the 

DOE test procedure because such 

controls consume additional energy to 

provide those features that are not 

directly related to energy efficiency. 

Additionally, DOE is not aware of any 

dehumidifiers currently available on the 

market or any working prototypes that 

incorporate a demand response function 

via smart controls. Accordingly, DOE 

did not consider smart controls as a 

design option to reach higher ELs in this 

analysis. DOE requests comment on any 

information or data about the 

availability of dehumidifiers with smart 

controls, including those currently 

available on the market or any working 

prototypes. 

After identifying all potential 

technology options for improving the 

efficiency of residential dehumidifiers, 

DOE performed a screening analysis (see 

section IV.B of this proposed rule and 

chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD) to 

determine which technologies merited 

further consideration. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following four 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 working 

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 effective date 

of the standard, then that technology 

will not be considered further. 

3. Impacts on product utility to 

consumers. If a technology is 

determined to have significant adverse 

impact on the utility of the product to 

significant 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 U.S. 

at the time, it will not be considered 

further. 

4. Safety of technologies. If it is 

determined that a technology will have 

significant adverse impacts on health or 

safety, it will not be considered further. 

(10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix 

A, 5(b)) 

In sum, if DOE determines that a 

technology, or a combination of 

technologies, fails to meet one or more 

of the above four criteria, it will be 

excluded from further consideration in 

the engineering analysis. The reasons 

for eliminating any technology are 

discussed below. 

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 

Pre-Cooling Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers 

(for Portable Dehumidifiers Up to 45 

Pints/Day) 

Based on teardowns and research, 

DOE determined that portable 

dehumidifiers with capacities up to 45 

pints/day have little room to incorporate 

additional components within the 

product case (see chapter 4, section 

4.2.1 of the NOPR TSD). DOE estimated 

that the addition of an effective precooling air-to-air heat exchanger would 

require case sizes to, at a minimum, 

double. Because of the increased size 

and weight, DOE determined that 

incorporating a pre-cooling air-to-air 

heat exchanger in portable 

dehumidifiers with capacities up to 45 

pints/day would have an adverse impact 

on product utility to consumers. 

Because this design option would result 

in the unavailability of products with 

the same size and volume as products 

currently available on the market, DOE 

screened out pre-cooling air-to-air heat 

exchangers as a design option for 

portable dehumidifiers with capacities 

up to 45 pints/day. 

AHAM supported screening out precooling air-to-air heat exchangers for 

smaller-capacity dehumidifiers. They 

noted that the pre-cooling heat 

exchangers would make larger-capacity 

products even bigger, because the 

enclosure would need to be bigger, 

which could impact portability and 

consumer utility. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 

6) DOE maintains its proposal to 

eliminate pre-cooling inlet air-to-air 

heat exchangers from further 

consideration for portable products with 

capacity less than 45 pints/day. For 

portable products with capacities 

greater than 45 pints/day, DOE notes 

that certain products available on the 

market already incorporate this 

technology option. Thus, DOE has 

maintained it as a potential design 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31660 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

option for this larger-capacity product 

class. 

Heat Pipes (for Portable Dehumidifiers 

Up to 45 Pints/Day) 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE also 

identified heat pipes as a potential 

technology to increase dehumidifier 

efficiency. Heat pipes perform a similar 

function as pre-cooling air-to-air heat 

exchangers, lowering the inlet air 

temperature to increase the efficiency of 

the refrigeration system, except that heat 

pipes use a phase-change fluid to 

transfer heat between the two air 

streams. DOE estimated that the 

additional heat exchangers and fluid 

tubing for heat pipes would likely 

require significant increases in case size 

and overall weight for portable 

dehumidifiers with capacities of up to 

45 pints/day, resulting in an adverse 

impact on product utility to consumers. 

Because this design option would result 

in the unavailability of products with 

the same weight and volume as 

products currently available on the 

market, DOE screened out heat pipes as 

a design option for portable 

dehumidifiers with capacities up to 45 

pints/day. AHAM agreed that heat pipes 

should be screened out for smallercapacity portable dehumidifiers due to 

their consumer utility impacts. (AHAM, 

No 22 at p. 6) 

However, in the preliminary analysis, 

DOE retained heat pipes as a design 

option for whole-home dehumidifiers 

and portable dehumidifiers with 

capacities greater than 45 pints/day. 

DOE noted that many of these products 

already use larger case sizes to 

accommodate pre-cooling air-to-air heat 

exchangers. Products incorporating heat 

pipes would likely require similar case 

volumes as the products available on 

the market that include pre-cooling airto-air heat exchangers, and would not 

likely impact consumer utility for 

whole-home dehumidifiers and portable 

dehumidifiers with capacities greater 

than 45 pints/day. 

Regarding improved condenser and 

evaporator performance, AHAM 

commented that adjusting the crosssectional area of the heat exchanger to 

increase heat transfer is feasible, but it 

will likely involve a change in enclosure 

size. AHAM suggested that DOE 

consider screening out this option for 

smaller capacities. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 

4) DOE agrees that increased heat 

exchanger areas may require an increase 

in enclosure size. However, larger coils 

requiring a larger case and chassis do 

not necessarily require moving to a 

product case as large as is needed for 

higher-capacity portable units (due to 

smaller heat exchangers as well as 

compressors, blowers, and condensate 

buckets). Accordingly, while there may 

be some increase in product sizes with 

increased heat exchanger area, DOE did 

not eliminate this technology option 

from further consideration because 

consumer utility could be maintained. 

2. Remaining Technologies 

After a review of each technology, 

DOE found that all of the identified 

technologies, with the restrictions for 

pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchangers 

and heat pipes discussed above, met all 

four screening criteria and are suitable 

for further examination in DOE’s 

analysis. 

TABLE IV.6—REMAINING DESIGN

OPTIONS FOR DEHUMIDIFIERS

1. Built-in hygrometer/humidistat. 

2. Improved compressor efficiency. 

3. Improved condenser and evaporator performance. 

4. Improved controls. 

5. Improved defrost methods. 

6. Improved demand-defrost controls. 

7. Improved fan and fan-motor efficiency. 

8. Improved flow-control devices. 

9. Low-standby-loss electronic controls. 

10. Washable air filters. 

11. Pre-cooling air-to-air heat exchanger 

(high-capacity portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers). 

12. Heat pipes (high-capacity portable and 

whole-home dehumidifiers). 

13. Improved refrigeration system insulation. 

14. Refrigerant-desiccant systems. 

DOE determined that these 

technology options are technologically 

feasible because they are being used or 

have previously been used in 

commercially available products or 

working prototypes. DOE also finds that 

all of the remaining technology options 

meet the other screening criteria (i.e., 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service and do not result in adverse 

impacts on consumer utility, product 

availability, health, or safety). For 

additional details, see chapter 4 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

In the engineering analysis DOE 

establishes the relationship between the 

manufacturer production cost (MPC) 

and improved residential dehumidifier 

efficiency. This relationship serves as 

the basis for cost-benefit calculations for 

individual consumers, manufacturers, 

and the nation. DOE typically structures 

the engineering analysis using one of 

three approaches: (1) Design option; (2) 

efficiency level; or (3) reverse 

engineering (or cost assessment). The 

design-option approach involves adding 

the estimated cost and associated 

efficiency of various efficiencyimproving design changes to the 

baseline to model different levels of 

efficiency. The efficiency-level 

approach uses estimates of costs and 

efficiencies of products available on the 

market at distinct efficiency levels to 

develop the cost-efficiency relationship. 

The reverse-engineering approach 

involves testing products for efficiency 

and determining cost from a detailed 

bill of materials (BOM) derived from 

reverse engineering representative 

products. 

In the preliminary engineering 

analysis, DOE used a hybrid approach 

combining aspects of all three analytic 

methods described above. The 

efficiency-level approach for residential 

dehumidifiers, combined with the costassessment approach, allowed DOE to 

develop a cost for each product 

analyzed. DOE estimated that the costs 

for these products reflected the costs for 

typical units at their respective 

efficiency levels. This approach 

involved physically disassembling 

commercially available products, 

consulting with outside experts, 

reviewing publicly available cost and 

performance information, and modeling 

equipment cost. To ensure that DOE’s 

analysis covered the entire range of 

capacities and efficiencies available on 

the market, DOE relied on the designoption approach to determine what 

changes would be needed for a 

particular unit to meet each 

incrementally higher EL. 

For this NOPR, DOE followed the 

same general approach as for the 

preliminary engineering analysis, but 

modified the analysis based on 

comments from interested parties and to 

reflect the most current available 

information. This section provides more 

detail on how DOE selected the ELs 

used for its analysis and developed the 

MPC at each EL. Chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD contains further description of the 

engineering analysis. 

1. Efficiency Levels 

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

A baseline unit is a product that just 

meets current Federal energy 

conservation standards and provides 

basic consumer utility. DOE uses the 

baseline unit for comparison in several 

phases of the NOPR analyses, including 

the engineering analysis, LCC analysis, 

PBP analysis, and NIA. To determine 

energy savings that will result from an 

amended energy conservation standard, 

DOE compares energy use at each of the 

higher energy ELs to the energy 

consumption of the baseline unit. 

Similarly, to determine the changes in 

price to the consumer that will result 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31661 

from an amended energy conservation 

standard, DOE compares the price of a 

unit at each higher EL to the price of a 

unit at the baseline. 

As discussed in section IV.A.2 of this 

notice, DOE adjusted the existing 

dehumidifier product classes for the 

preliminary analysis to reflect capacities 

measured according to the test 

procedures proposed in the May 2014 

Test Procedure NOPR. Similarly, DOE 

established baseline ELs in the 

preliminary engineering analysis by 

adjusting the existing baseline EFs to 

IEFs as would be measured under the 

proposed testing requirements. For the 

portable product classes, the most 

significant adjustments accounted for 

the lower ambient test temperature, and 

energy consumption in standby mode, 

off mode, and fan-only mode. DOE also 

established separate baseline 

efficiencies for the two proposed wholehome dehumidifier product classes. 

Table IV.7 and Table IV.8 present the 

baseline ELs developed for the 

preliminary analysis. Additional 

information on the development of 

these baseline ELs is included in 

chapter 5, section 5.3.1 of the 

preliminary TSD. 

TABLE IV.7—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

PORTABLE DEHUMIDIFIER BASELINE

EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Capacity 

(pints/day) 

IEF 

(L/kWh) 

20.00 or less ............................... 0.77 

20.01—30.00 .............................. 0.80 

30.01—35.00 .............................. 0.94 

35.01—45.00 .............................. 1.00 

45.01 or more ............................. 2.07 

TABLE IV.8—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

WHOLE-HOME DEHUMIDIFIER BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Product class 

(case volume, cubic feet) 

IEF 

(L/kWh) 

less than or equal to 8.0 ............ 1.10 

TABLE IV.8—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

WHOLE-HOME DEHUMIDIFIER BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS—Continued 

Product class 

(case volume, cubic feet) 

IEF 

(L/kWh) 

greater than 8.0 .......................... 1.68 

In response to the preliminary 

analysis, AHAM commented that if the 

test procedure includes a measure of 

fan-only mode energy use, AHAM 

would support the proposed baseline 

IEF based on units with fan-only mode. 

(AHAM, No. 22 at p. 3) DOE notes that 

the appendix X1 test procedure 

incorporates energy consumption in fanonly mode into the calculation of IEF, 

and DOE considered units with fan-only 

mode to determine the proposed 

baseline IEF in this analysis. 

Aprilaire commented that it was not 

aware of any whole-home units that 

have a fan-only mode. According to 

Aprilaire, whole-home dehumidifiers 

use the HVAC air handler instead of the 

dehumidifier fan to circulate air inside 

the home. (Aprilaire, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 23–24) 

Aprilaire’s comment is consistent with 

what DOE observed during investigative 

testing. No whole-home units in DOE’s 

test sample operated in fan-only mode. 

Accordingly, DOE has not adjusted the 

whole-home dehumidifier baseline 

levels to account for operation in this 

mode. 

For this NOPR, DOE maintained the 

baseline efficiencies determined for the 

preliminary analysis, with updates to 

reflect the combined product classes as 

discussed in section IV.A.1 of this 

notice. DOE set the baseline efficiency 

level for the combined product classes 

at the lower of the two baseline IEF 

levels considered in the preliminary 

analysis for the two previously separate 

product classes, because that IEF would 

be based on the minimum energy 

conservation standard currently 

applicable for any product within the 

combined product classes. Table IV.9 

and Table IV.10 present the baseline 

efficiency levels used in this NOPR 

analysis. 

TABLE IV.9—PORTABLE DEHUMIDIFIER

BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Capacity 

(pints/day) 

IEF 

(L/kWh) 

30.00 or less ............................... 0.77 

30.01—45.00 .............................. 0.94 

45.01 or more ............................. 2.07 

TABLE IV.10—WHOLE-HOME DEHUMIDIFIER BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Product Class 

(case volume, cubic feet) 

IEF 

(L/kWh) 

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

more than 8.0 ............................. 2.41 

Additional details on the selection of 

baseline units may be found in chapter 

5, section 5.3.1 of the NOPR TSD. 

b. Higher Energy Efficiency Levels 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered incremental efficiency levels 

beyond the baseline that were based on 

existing efficiency levels (e.g., the 

ENERGY STAR level) available in the 

market and observed during 

investigative testing. Similar to the 

baseline efficiency levels discussed 

above, DOE adjusted these efficiency 

levels to reflect values that would be 

obtained when using the test procedure 

proposed in the May 2014 Test 

Procedure NOPR. In addition, DOE 

proposed that the first incremental 

efficiency level beyond the baseline for 

each product class be achieved by the 

elimination of fan-only mode. Table 

IV.11 and Table IV.12 present the 

efficiency levels DOE considered in the 

preliminary analysis. Additional 

information on the development of 

incremental efficiency levels is included 

in chapter 5, section 5.3.2 of the 

preliminary TSD. 

TABLE IV.11—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PORTABLE DEHUMIDIFIER EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Efficiency 

level Efficiency level source 

Integrated energy factor efficiency levels 

(L/kWh) 

20.00 

pints/day 

or less 

20.01–30.00 

pints/day 

30.01–35.00 

pints/day 

35.01–45.00 

pints/day 

45.01 

pints/day 

or more 

Baseline ...... Baseline with Fan-only Mode ........... 0.77 0.80 0.94 1.00 2.07 

1 .................. Baseline with no Fan-only Mode ..... 1.10 1.10 1.20 1.30 2.40 

2 .................. Gap Fill 1 .......................................... 1.20 1.20 * 1.40 * 1.40 2.80 

3 .................. Gap Fill 2/Maximum Available ......... * 1.30 * 1.30 1.60 1.60 3.52 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31662 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE IV.11—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PORTABLE DEHUMIDIFIER EFFICIENCY LEVELS—Continued 

Efficiency 

level Efficiency level source 

Integrated energy factor efficiency levels 

(L/kWh) 

20.00 

pints/day 

or less 

20.01–30.00 

pints/day 

30.01–35.00 

pints/day 

35.01–45.00 

pints/day 

45.01 

pints/day 

or more 

4 .................. Maximum Available .......................... 1.42 1.52 1.75 1.75 ..........................

* These IEF levels represent a translation of the ENERGY STAR efficiency level of 1.85 L/kWh based on the current test conditions to the proposed test condition of 65 °F for the given product class. 

TABLE IV.12—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS WHOLE-HOME DEHUMIDIFIER EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Efficiency 

level Efficiency level source 

Integrated energy factor 

efficiency levels 

(L/kWh) 

8.0 ft3

or less 

(case volume) 

8.0 ft3

or more 

(case volume) 

Baseline ...... Minimum Available ..................................................................................................................... 1.10 1.68 

1 .................. Gap Fill 1 .................................................................................................................................... 1.40 1.90 

2 .................. Gap Fill 2/Maximum Available ................................................................................................... 1.59 2.80 

3 .................. Maximum Available .................................................................................................................... 3.41 

In response to the preliminary 

analysis, AHAM commented that its 

members were conducting testing to 

compare performance at 80 °F and 65 °F 

ambient conditions, and if possible, 

AHAM would provide this aggregated 

data to DOE. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 4) 

DOE has not received additional test 

data from AHAM at the time of this 

NOPR, and has therefore relied on its 

internal test data to establish 

appropriate IEF values for the 

incremental efficiency levels beyond the 

baseline. 

Aprilaire noted that there was only 

about an 11-percent difference between 

the current DOE energy conservation 

standards and ENERGY STAR 

qualification criteria. Aprilaire stated 

that if the purpose of ENERGY STAR is 

to promote the best technology at the 

best value, the current DOE and 

ENERGY STAR requirements may not 

provide sufficient consumer choices and 

differentiation to promote using the 

latest technology. (Aprilaire, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 48, 50) 

Although the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), rather than 

DOE, establishes the ENERGY STAR 

qualification criteria, DOE selected the 

current ENERGY STAR level as the 

basis for an efficiency level in each 

portable product dehumidifier product 

class because many products available 

on the market are rated at that level. 

While the ENERGY STAR level does not 

represent a large jump in efficiency from 

the current DOE standards, on a 

percentage basis, the range of 

dehumidifier efficiencies on the market 

is not large, and the increase in 

efficiency from baseline to ENERGY 

STAR represents a significant increase 

in efficiency over this range. DOE also 

evaluated higher ELs than the ENERGY 

STAR level. 

Aprilaire asked why there was such a 

large difference between the highest 

efficiency levels for the two wholehome product classes. (Aprilaire, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 33) 

DOE notes that the smaller case volume 

for the less than 8.0 ft3 product class 

limits the available technology options 

that may be incorporated into these 

units. For example, the smaller case 

limits the size of the condenser and 

evaporator heat exchangers and the 

ability to incorporate a pre-cooling heat 

exchanger. Units with larger case 

volumes are able to more easily 

incorporate these design options and 

thus can achieve a higher max-tech 

efficiency. 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE 

used the maximum available 

efficiencies as the highest efficiency 

levels for its analysis, and requested 

feedback on whether these levels were 

appropriate. ASAP asked whether the 

max-tech levels should be higher than 

the current maximum available 

efficiency levels. ASAP also asked 

whether the max-tech level is 

independent of what level might be 

appropriate for a standard. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 

34–35) The Joint Commenters stated 

that DOE should evaluate potential 

efficiency improvements beyond the 

maximum available level, and should 

not use the maximum available level as 

a proxy for the max-tech levels. They 

stated that, for example, modest 

increases in chassis size, permanentmagnet fan motors, and additional heat 

exchanger improvements may provide 

further efficiency gains, and that the 

max-tech levels would likely be higher 

than the efficiency levels of the mostefficient currently available products. 

(Joint Commenters, No. 23 at pp. 2–3) 

The California IOUs commented that the 

max-tech efficiency level should be 

based on modeled efficiencies, as 

opposed to products currently available 

in the market. They stated that it is 

important for DOE to either physically 

test or model a true max-tech level of 

dehumidifier efficiency, and this level 

need not be constrained by cost or other 

factors that are present in normal 

commercial product development. The 

California IOUs stated that this maxtech option should incorporate every 

known measure to maximize efficiency 

(e.g., inlet air pre-cooling, improved 

compressor efficiency, and improved 

condenser and evaporator heat transfer 

rate). They stated that in addition to 

capturing the full energy savings 

potential, existing dehumidifiers could 

be compared to this benchmark to 

determine effective timeframes for when 

the commercial market could meet the 

max-tech level. (California IOUs, No. 24 

at p. 4) 

DOE establishes the max-tech level as 

the maximum efficiency that is 

technologically feasible for the covered 

product. In analyzing potential 

standards, DOE is not constrained to 

selecting max-tech levels as the 

proposed standards levels. DOE agrees 

that dehumidifiers commercially 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31663 

available at this time may not 

incorporate all design options that are 

technologically feasible, and therefore 

revised the max-tech efficiency levels to 

incorporate additional design options 

beyond those observed in its test 

sample. DOE then modeled the 

increased efficiency associated with 

these new max-tech levels. 

For the NOPR analysis, another key 

change to the efficiency levels 

considered for the preliminary analysis 

was to combine the previous four lowest 

capacity portable product classes into 

two, as discussed in section IV.A.1 of 

this proposed rule. The two portable 

product classes from the preliminary 

analysis with capacities less than 30.00 

pints/day each have three identical 

intermediate efficiency levels. For the 

combined 30.01 to 45.00 pints/day 

product class, DOE used an IEF of 1.20 

L/kWh for Efficiency Level 1. The 

previous Efficiency Level 1 for the 35.01 

to 45.00 product class in the 

preliminary analysis was at an IEF of 

1.30 L/kWh. DOE chose an IEF of 1.20 

L/kWh as the appropriate level for the 

combined product class because this 

represents the baseline IEF with no fanonly mode; therefore, DOE concluded it 

would be appropriate to maintain the 

lower of the two IEFs at this level for the 

combined product class. 

DOE also updated the efficiency 

levels for the whole-home dehumidifier 

classes based on the appendix X1 test 

procedures, which require a different 

ambient dry-bulb temperature (73 °F 

instead of 65 °F) from that proposed in 

the May 2014 Test Procedure NOPR and 

a different external static pressure (0.20 

inches of water column instead of 0.5 

and 0.25 inches of water column) from 

those proposed in the May 2014 Test 

Procedure NOPR and the February 2015 

Test Procedure SNOPR). 

Table IV.13 and Table IV.14 present 

the revised efficiency levels DOE 

considered in this NOPR analysis. 

TABLE IV.13—NOPR ANALYSIS PORTABLE DEHUMIDIFIER EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Efficiency 

level Efficiency level source 

Integrated energy factor efficiency levels 

(L/kWh) 

30.00 

pints/day 

or less 

30.01–45.00 

pints/day 

45.01 

pints/day 

or more 

Baseline ....... Current Baseline with Fan-only Mode ......................................................... 0.77 0.94 2.07 

1 .................. Current Baseline with no Fan-only Mode .................................................... 1.10 1.20 2.40 

2 .................. Gap Fill 1 ..................................................................................................... 1.20 1.40 2.80 

3 .................. Gap Fill 2/Max Tech .................................................................................... 1.30 1.60 3.66 

4 .................. Max Tech ..................................................................................................... 1.57 1.80 ..........................

TABLE IV.14—NOPR ANALYSIS WHOLE-HOME DEHUMIDIFIER EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Efficiency 

level Efficiency level source 

Integrated energy factor 

efficiency levels 

(L/kWh) 

8.0 ft3

or less 

(case volume) 

More than 

8.0 ft3

(case volume) 

Baseline ...... Minimum Available ..................................................................................................................... 1.77 2.41 

1 .................. Gap Fill 1 .................................................................................................................................... 2.09 2.70 

2 .................. Gap Fill 2/Max Tech ................................................................................................................... 2.53 3.52 

3 .................. Max Tech ................................................................................................................................... .......................... 4.50 

Additional details on the selection of 

incremental efficiency levels may be 

found in chapter 5, section 5.3.2 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

2. Manufacturer Production Cost 

Estimates 

Based on product teardowns and cost 

modeling conducted in the preliminary 

analysis, DOE developed overall costefficiency relationships for each product 

class considered in that analysis. DOE 

selected products covering the range of 

efficiencies available on the market for 

the teardown analysis. During the 

teardown process, DOE created detailed 

bills of materials (BOMs) that included 

all components and processes used to 

manufacture the products. DOE used the 

BOMs from the teardowns as an input 

to a cost model, which was used to 

calculate the MPC for products covering 

the range of efficiencies available on the 

market. The MPC accounts for labor, 

material, overhead, and depreciation 

costs that a manufacturer would incur 

in producing a specific dehumidifier. 

DOE also developed BOMS and MPCs 

for theoretical units that could 

implement the current max-tech for 

dehumidifier components. 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE 

estimated that the costs for these 

products reflected the costs for typical 

units at their respective efficiency 

levels, consistent with the efficiencylevel approach. DOE then used the 

design-option approach to determine 

what changes would be needed for a 

particular unit to meet each 

incrementally higher efficiency level. 

DOE constructed cost-efficiency curves 

for multiple manufacturers to reflect the 

incremental MPC corresponding to each 

manufacturer’s product line and 

available platforms. DOE combined the 

individual cost-efficiency curves based 

on estimates of each manufacturer’s 

market share to develop an overall costefficiency curve representative of the 

entire industry. Table IV. 15 shows the 

incremental MPCs developed in the 

preliminary analysis for each product 

class at each of the analyzed efficiency 

levels compared to the baseline MPC. 

The incremental MPCs are presented in 

2012 dollars (2012$), which reflects the 

year in which the preliminary analysis 

teardowns and modeling were 

performed. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31664 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE IV.15—PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS DEHUMIDIFIER INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS

[2012$] 

Portable product class capacities 

(pints/day) 

Whole-home product class 

case volume 

(cubic feet) 

Efficiency level ≤20.00 20.01–30.00 30.01–35.00 35.01–45.00 >45.00 ≤8.0 >8.0 

EL1 ............................... $— $— $— $— $38.40 $15.22 $6.14 

EL2 ............................... 1.56 1.85 2.94 1.98 49.16 76.18 37.05 

EL3 ............................... 4.64 3.78 8.72 7.56 100.13 N/A 112.01 

EL4 ............................... 7.77 10.82 13.40 11.24 N/A N/A N/A 

Section 5.5 of Chapter 5 of the 

preliminary TSD contains additional 

details on the analysis conducted in 

support of developing these MPC 

estimates. 

DOE received multiple comments 

from interested parties on the 

engineering analysis and MPC estimates 

developed for the preliminary analysis. 

GE Appliances (GE) commented that it 

is very low cost to get to Efficiency 

Level 1 by eliminating fan-only mode 

because it only requires software 

changes. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 25 at p. 43) AHAM and 

GE commented that removing fan-only 

mode reduces consumer utility with 

longer defrost times at lower 

temperatures, less stability of the 

humidity in the environment, and 

stagnation of the air. AHAM also stated 

that for manufacturers that would not 

want to make these tradeoffs, Efficiency 

Level 1 would be nearly impossible to 

meet by combining other technology 

options. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 3; GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 

43) DOE continues to expect 

manufacturers would remove fan-only 

mode in products as a first step to 

improving efficiency because of the low 

cost and ease of implementation. Many 

units available on the market already do 

not incorporate fan-only mode. In 

manufacturer interviews, manufacturers 

typically stated that there would be no 

impact on consumer utility to remove 

fan-only mode. DOE also notes that 

although it asserts that manufacturers 

would remove fan-only mode to reach 

Efficiency Level 1, manufacturers may 

elect to incorporate other design options 

to improve efficiency to that level. 

Aprilaire asked whether DOE 

considered in its analysis the limited 

availability of compressor technologies 

for the larger dehumidifiers. Aprilaire 

noted that compressors in larger 

dehumidifiers do not have a lot of new 

technologies and sizes available to 

them. Manufacturers would have to 

increase efficiency by increasing coil 

sizes or incorporating features such as 

air-to-air heat exchangers or wraparound coils, which would be very 

expensive for the manufacturer. 

(Aprilaire, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 25 at pp. 23–24) AHAM commented 

that compressor efficiency has not been 

increasing significantly. Manufacturers 

may be seeking to incorporate higher 

efficiency compressors, but it is possible 

that compressors are reaching close to 

max-tech levels such that selecting a 

higher efficiency compressor may be 

cost prohibitive. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 4) 

For the preliminary engineering 

analysis, DOE identified the range of 

compressor capacities observed in 

dehumidifiers available on the market. 

DOE then identified the range of 

efficiencies for all available compressors 

within that capacity range. When 

evaluating higher compressor 

efficiencies, DOE considered the most 

efficient rotary R–410A compressor 

available in the required range of 

capacities, without requiring a switch to 

a different compressor technology. 

Additionally, DOE factored in the 

compressor efficiencies observed in 

products in its teardown sample when 

determining the overall efficiency gains 

that may be achieved through 

compressor improvements. If a 

dehumidifier already incorporated an 

efficient compressor, DOE relied on 

other design options such as increasing 

heat exchanger sizes to improve 

efficiencies. 

In AHAM’s comments on the 

preliminary engineering analysis cost 

estimates, it asked for more information 

on how a 3,000 Btu/h compressor would 

be estimated to cost less than $7. 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

25 at p. 38) GE commented that because 

there are very few room air conditioner 

compressors rated as low as 5,000 Btu/ 

h, the curve used to determine 

compressor prices is probably valid only 

down to 5,000 Btu/h. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at p. 39) 

DOE notes that in the preliminary 

analysis, it relied on the room air 

conditioner compressor cost curve only 

over the range of capacities for which it 

was developed, 5,000 to 24,000 Btu/h. 

DOE used the $7 cost for a 3,000 Btu/ 

h compressor as an example of an 

inappropriately low cost from 

extrapolating the cost curve below its 

lower limit (5,000 Btu/h). DOE did not 

use this cost estimate in the preliminary 

analysis or in this NOPR. In both the 

preliminary analysis and this NOPR, 

DOE estimated that compressor costs 

would continue to decrease for 

compressor capacities less than 5,000 

Btu/h, but estimated a more 

conservative linear decrease in costs 

compared to extrapolating the room air 

conditioner curve. (For additional 

information, see chapter 5, section 5.5.5 

of the preliminary TSD.) 

ASAP asked if DOE had evaluated 

heat exchanger improvements other 

than increasing the cross-sectional area, 

and if so, which improvement had the 

largest impact. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 25 at p. 46) AHAM 

commented that manufacturers might 

choose to rely on heat exchanger sizes 

to improve condenser and evaporator 

performance, but larger coils mean more 

static pressure, thus adding more costly 

motors. (AHAM, No. 22 at pp. 3–4) 

As part of the preliminary analysis, 

DOE considered additional heat 

exchanger design changes, including 

increasing the number of tube passes 

and heat exchanger depth in the 

direction of the air flow. DOE modeled 

the efficiency improvements of these 

changes, as well as an increase in crosssectional area, and found that increasing 

the heat exchanger cross-sectional area 

resulted in the greatest efficiency 

improvement. As noted in section 5.5.1 

and throughout chapter 5 of the 

preliminary TSD, DOE asserted that 

manufacturers would rely on this heat 

exchanger design change to reach higher 

efficiency levels. Manufacturers 

confirmed during interviews that they 

would typically rely on increased crosssectional area rather than other heat 

exchanger design changes to reach 

higher efficiencies. In considering larger 

cross-sectional areas, DOE also did not 

assume a corresponding increase in 

motor power. DOE expects that the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31665 

static pressure over the heat exchanger 

would not increase with larger crosssectional area because of the lower 

relative air velocity through the coil. 

ASAP asked whether a fixed standby 

power level is incorporated into each 

IEF level. ASAP noted that the 

preliminary analysis does not include 

reduced standby power as a design 

option, which is reasonable as long as 

the standby power levels at each 

efficiency level are low. ASAP further 

commented that the energy study that 

DOE cited in the preliminary TSD found 

standby power levels for some products 

to be as high as 12 watts (W), and 

requested confirmation that high 

standby power levels are not 

incorporated in the IEFs. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 44–45) 

AHAM agreed with DOE’s 

determination in the preliminary 

analysis that manufacturers would rely 

on changes other than low-standby-loss 

electronic controls to achieve the 

relatively large increments in efficiency 

levels. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 5) 

In section 5.5.3.2 of the preliminary 

TSD, DOE noted that while the average 

low-power mode power draw for units 

in its test sample was lower for a 

switch-mode power supply compared to 

a linear power supply (0.4 W compared 

to 1.2 W), these values, incorporated 

into the same unit, would have a 

negligible effect on the final rounded 

IEF. Accordingly, DOE did not consider 

improving low-power mode energy 

consumption at any efficiency level. If 

a unit did indeed have a 12 W lowpower mode power draw, DOE expects 

that the manufacturer would switch to 

low-standby-power controls to improve 

IEF. However, DOE notes that the 12 W 

level was observed in the field, and does 

not necessarily reflect the control 

settings and operation of the unit as 

tested according to the low-power mode 

testing provisions in the appendix X1 

test procedures. DOE did not observe 

any standby mode or off mode power 

levels higher than 4.5 W in its testing of 

a large sample of dehumidifiers from 

manufacturers representing over 80 

percent of the market. 

GE and AHAM commented that 

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) has a 

new standard, UL 474, which requires 

Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter (AFCI) 

protection to be added to all cordconnected dehumidifiers manufactured 

on or after February 6, 2017. Adding 

AFCI protection to dehumidifiers will 

increase standby power. According to 

GE, the increase in standby power 

would be about 0.5 W. (AHAM, No. 22 

at p. 7; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 25 at pp. 47–48) This estimated 

increase in low-power mode power 

draw is similar to the range in lowpower mode power consumption that 

DOE observed among the units in its test 

sample, and which DOE determined had 

little or no effect on the final rounded 

IEF value. Accordingly, DOE 

determined that the new UL 474 

standard would not require adjusting 

the IEF values considered for each 

efficiency level. 

In chapter 5, section 5.5.3.2 of the 

preliminary TSD, DOE provided 

discussion on a number of design 

options that were not directly 

considered in the engineering analysis. 

These design options were described in 

chapter 3, section 3.14.2 of the 

preliminary TSD. AHAM agreed that: 

1. A built-in hygrometer/humidistat 

would not result in efficiency gains. 

2. Because the test procedure requires 

continuous unit operation at constant 

ambient conditions, it would not reflect 

improved control schemes and thus 

these should not be further considered 

in the analysis. 

3. If DOE adopts the 65 °F ambient 

condition, manufacturers would likely 

adjust their units to avoid defrosts when 

operating at that condition, and thus 

improved defrost methods should not be 

considered further in the analysis. 

4. Demand-defrost controls should not 

be considered because units on the 

market already feature sensor-based 

defrost control and because the test 

procedure would not capture efficiency 

improvements from it. 

5. Any benefit associated with the 

unit’s ability to adjust to varying 

ambient conditions would not be 

captured by the test procedure, and thus 

improved flow-control devices should 

not be further considered in the 

analysis. 

6. Washable air filters are not a design 

option because all units DOE analyzed 

include this feature. 

7. Improved refrigeration system 

insulation should not be considered as 

a design option because DOE did not 

observe a relationship between 

efficiency and insulation. (AHAM, No. 

22 at pp. 4–6) 

The California IOUs commented that 

measures that were rejected because 

their impact would not be directly 

observable under the current DOE test 

procedure—variable-speed compressors, 

permanent-magnet fan motors, 

improved controls (standby power 

consumption, relative humidity setpoint accuracy, refrigerant flow 

controls, improved defrost controls), 

and improved insulation in the 

refrigeration system—all have the 

potential for significant energy use 

reduction and therefore should be 

considered as design options. The 

California IOUs stated that a number of 

areas for improving the accuracy and 

range of controls could greatly enhance 

overall dehumidifier efficiency, and 

although the majority of these measures 

would not significantly affect the rated 

active mode efficiency of dehumidifiers 

under the current test procedure, they 

should be considered as design options 

because future updates to the test 

procedure may properly account for 

these efficiency gains. (California IOUs, 

No. 24 at pp. 4 and 5) The California 

IOUs also commented that DOE should 

consider requiring dehumidifiers to 

contain hygrometers, which would 

reduce overall energy use by 

automatically controlling active mode 

operation based on ambient temperature 

and humidity conditions. They stated 

that more advanced controls are capable 

of using data from hygrometers to 

optimize compressor and fan usage by 

utilizing a pre-programmed compressor 

and fan schedule over a range of drybulb and wet-bulb temperature 

combinations. They also stated that 

because some hygrometers can be 

inaccurate, which could cause units to 

run much longer duty cycles than the 

user intends, DOE should consider 

requiring a certain hygrometer accuracy 

and should modify the test procedure to 

accommodate this measurement. 

(California IOUs, No. 24 at p. 5) 

DOE identified these design options 

in the market and technology 

assessment because of their potential to 

increase dehumidifier efficiencies in 

real-world applications. However, 

because the benefits of these design 

options would likely not be measured 

under the appendix X1 test procedure, 

DOE determined that manufacturers 

would not likely incorporate the design 

options to existing products to reach 

higher efficiency levels. The appendix 

X1 test procedure determines 

dehumidifier performance under 

constant ambient conditions, and 

therefore would not reflect potential 

energy impacts of design options that 

improve controls to adjust unit 

operation to respond to ambient 

conditions. Accordingly, DOE requests 

comment on whether to promote 

installation of any of the design options 

identified by the California IOUs, even 

though the resulting efficiency gains 

would not be measurable with the 

existing test protocol. 

ASAP and the Joint Commenters 

stated that DOE should include the 

efficiency improvements associated 

with permanent-magnet fan motors 

unless the savings are trivial. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 25 at pp. 

45–46; Joint Commenters, No. 23 at pp. 

2–3) The Joint Commenters also stated 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31666 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

26U.S. Census, 2007 Annual Retail Trade Survey 

(ARTS), Electronics and Appliance Stores sectors. 

27Willem, H., et al., Using Field-Metered Data to 

Quantify Annual Energy Use of Residential Portable 

Unit Dehumidifiers, Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory (Nov. 2013); Willem, H., et al., FieldMonitoring of Whole-Home Dehumidifiers: Initial 

Results of a Pilot Study, Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory (Nov. 2013). 

that while costs to both consumers and 

manufacturers are important 

considerations in determining 

appropriate standard levels, costs can’t 

be considered in establishing the maxtech levels. They also noted that DOE 

analyzed permanent-magnet fan motors 

in several recent rulemakings (furnace 

fans, walk-in coolers and freezers, 

commercial refrigeration equipment). 

(Joint Commenters, No. 23 at pp. 2–3) 

AHAM commented in agreement with 

DOE’s determination in the preliminary 

analysis that improved fan and fanmotor efficiency should not be 

considered because DOE found no 

significant changes to blowers and fan 

motors at different efficiencies. (AHAM, 

No. 22 at p. 5) 

In improving the max-tech 

efficiencies beyond the maximum 

available, as discussed in section 

IV.C.1.b of this proposed rule, DOE 

included a change to permanent-magnet 

fan motors. While manufacturers do not 

currently incorporate permanent-magnet 

fan motors in products available on the 

market, DOE determined that this is a 

technologically feasible change that 

would improve product efficiencies. 

The revised MPCs for the NOPR 

analysis reflect this design change, as 

well as others, at the max-tech 

efficiency level. 

For the NOPR analysis, DOE also 

updated the incremental MPC estimates 

from the preliminary analysis to 

combine the four lower capacity 

portable product classes into two, as 

discussed in section IV.A.1 of this 

proposed rule. To combine the cost 

estimates from the previous separate 

portable product classes, DOE used the 

market shares discussed in the 

preliminary analysis (see chapter 9, 

section 9.3.3 of the preliminary TSD) to 

determine a weighted average of the 

previous cost estimates. Additionally, 

DOE updated the MPCs to 2013$, the 

most recent year for which full-year data 

was available at the time of this 

analysis. DOE notes that the wholehome test procedure revisions did not 

impact the MPC cost estimates for those 

product classes. DOE assumed products 

would maintain the same construction 

as considered for the preliminary 

analysis, with updated IEFs to reflect 

the proposed, revised test conditions. 

Table IV.16 presents the updated MPC 

estimates DOE developed for this NOPR. 

TABLE IV.16—NOPR ANALYSIS DEHUMIDIFIER INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS

[2013$] 

Efficiency level 

Portable product class capacities 

(pints/day) 

Whole-home product class 

case volume 

(ft3) 

≤30.00 30.01–45.00 >45.00 ≤8.0 >8.0 

EL1 ....................................................................................... $— $— $42.81 $15.30 $6.20 

EL2 ....................................................................................... 1.69 2.39 53.66 129.22 37.20 

EL3 ....................................................................................... 4.27 8.07 120.33 N/A 161.39 

EL4 ....................................................................................... 19.38 22.42 N/A N/A N/A 

Additional details on the 

development of the incremental cost 

estimates may be found in chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups in the distribution 

chain to convert the MPC estimates 

derived in the engineering analysis to 

consumer prices. At each step in the 

distribution channel, companies mark 

up the price of the product to cover 

business costs and profit margin. For 

residential dehumidifiers, the main 

parties in the distribution chain are 

manufacturers and retailers. 

The manufacturer markup converts 

MPC to manufacturer selling price 

(MSP). DOE developed an average 

manufacturer markup by examining the 

annual Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC) 10–K reports filed by 

publicly traded manufacturers primarily 

engaged in appliance manufacturing 

and whose combined product range 

includes residential dehumidifiers. 

For retailers, DOE developed separate 

markups for baseline products (baseline 

markups) and for the incremental cost of 

more efficient products (incremental 

markups). Incremental markups are 

coefficients that relate the change in the 

MSP of higher-efficiency models to the 

change in the retailer sales price. DOE 

relied on economic data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau to estimate average 

baseline and incremental markups.26

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides 

details on DOE’s development of 

markups for residential dehumidifiers. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

DOE’s energy use analysis estimated 

the range of energy use of residential 

dehumidifiers in the field, i.e., as they 

are actually used by consumers. The 

energy use analysis provided 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 standards. 

A dehumidifier uses energy when the 

compressor is operating to remove 

moisture from the air. When the 

compressor is not operating, the 

dehumidifier may use energy for a fanonly mode that circulates air through 

the unit to sample the ambient relative 

humidity and to defrost the condenser 

coils. When neither the fan nor the 

compressor is operating, energy is used 

in standby mode or off mode to supply 

power for functions such as keeping a 

user panel lit. 

DOE determined the annual energy 

consumption of residential 

dehumidifiers by multiplying the 

capacity (liters per day) by the hours of 

operation in dehumidification mode, 

dividing that quantity by the product 

efficiency, and adding the energy use for 

the fan mode and the standby and off 

mode. 

The efficiency and capacity values 

were measured using a temperature of 

80 °F and humidity set point of 60 

percent, as stipulated in the current test 

procedure for dehumidifiers. 

To estimate hours of operation in each 

mode, DOE used two recent field 

studies that measured daily hours of use 

in each operating mode for both 

portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers.27 DOE paired these data 

with estimates of the number of months 

that dehumidifiers are used in a 

representative sample of U.S. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31667 

28U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information 

Administration, Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey: 2009 RECS Survey Data (2013) (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/

data/2009/). 

households. DOE used data from the 

EIA’s 2009 Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey (RECS 2009), 

which was the most recent such survey 

available at the time of DOE’s analysis.28

RECS is a national sample survey of 

housing units that collects statistical 

information on the consumption of and 

expenditures for energy in housing units 

along with data on energy-related 

characteristics of the housing units and 

occupants. RECS 2009 questioned each 

household on two aspects of 

dehumidifier use: (1) Ownership and (2) 

number of months of dehumidifier use. 

DOE estimated that consumers leave the 

dehumidifier to cycle on and off for the 

entire month or months of the 

dehumidification season. 

DOE estimated the energy use for the 

fan mode and the standby and off mode 

using the hours of operation described 

above, along with data on average power 

in fan and standby modes from the field 

studies. 

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides 

details on DOE’s energy use analysis for 

residential dehumidifiers. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

In determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified, DOE considers the economic 

impact of potential standards on 

consumers. 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: 

• LCC (life-cycle cost) is the total 

consumer cost of an appliance or 

product, generally over the life of the 

appliance or product. The LCC 

calculation includes total installed cost 

(equipment manufacturer selling price, 

distribution chain markups, sales tax, 

and installation costs), operating costs 

(energy, repair, and maintenance costs), 

equipment lifetime, and discount rate. 

Future operating costs are discounted to 

the time of purchase and summed over 

the lifetime of the appliance or product. 

• PBP (payback period) measures the 

amount of time it takes consumers to 

recover the estimated higher purchase 

price of a more energy-efficient product 

through reduced operating costs. Inputs 

to the payback period calculation 

include the installed cost to the 

consumer and first-year operating costs. 

For any given EL, DOE measures the 

change in LCC relative to the LCC in the 

base case, which reflects the market in 

the absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards, and includes 

baseline products as well as products 

with higher efficiency. In contrast, the 

PBP for a given EL is measured relative 

to the baseline product only. 

For each product class efficiency 

level, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP 

for a nationally representative set of 

housing units. As stated previously, 

DOE developed household samples with 

RECS 2009 data. For each sample 

household, DOE determined the energy 

consumption for the residential 

dehumidifier and the appropriate 

electricity price. By developing a 

representative sample of households, 

the analysis captured the variability in 

energy consumption and energy prices 

associated with the use of residential 

dehumidifiers. 

AHAM continues to oppose DOE’s 

reliance on RECS 2009 for the LCC and 

PBP analysis. AHAM considers it 

difficult, if not impossible, to compare 

the results to the energy use measured 

in a controlled test procedure situation. 

(AHAM, No. 22 at p. 6) 

The LCC and PBP analyses are 

designed to support DOE’s 

consideration of the economic impact of 

potential standards on consumers of the 

products subject to the standard, as 

required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) The use of RECS 

2009 to develop a consumer sample and 

to provide data for estimation of product 

energy use allows DOE to characterize 

the range of conditions in which 

covered appliances are operated. As a 

result, DOE is able to estimate how the 

energy savings would vary among 

households for each considered EL. 

Measurement of energy use in a 

controlled test procedure situation has a 

different purpose, which is to provide 

accurate and comparable measures of 

energy efficiency for particular covered 

products. 

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 and PBP, which 

incorporates Crystal BallTM (a 

commercially available software 

program), 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 residential 

dehumidifier user samples. The model 

calculated the LCC and PBP for 

products at each efficiency level for 

10,000 housing units per simulation 

run. 

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for 

all customers as if each were to 

purchase a new product in the expected 

year of compliance with amended 

standards. The amended standards 

would apply to residential 

dehumidifiers manufactured 3 years 

after the date on which the amended 

standards for residential dehumidifiers 

are published. At this time, DOE 

estimates publication of a final rule in 

2016. Therefore, for purposes of its 

analysis, DOE used 2019 as the first year 

of compliance with any amended 

standards. 

Table IV.17 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The 

subsections that follow provide further 

discussion. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 

chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD and its 

appendices. 

TABLE IV.17—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 

Inputs Source/method 

Product Cost ................................... Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used 

historical data to derive a price scaling index to forecast product costs. 

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


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31668 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

29Margaret Taylor and K. Sydny Fujita, 

Accounting for Technological Change in Regulatory 

Impact Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique, 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Apr. 30, 

2013); P.B. Kantor and W. I. Zangwill, Theoretical 

Foundation for a Learning Rate Budget, 

Management Science, Mar. 1, 1991, at 315; L. 

Argote and D. Epple, Learning Curves in 

Manufacturing, Science, Feb. 1990, at 920; J.M. 

Dutton and A. Thomas, Treating Progress Functions 

as a Managerial Opportunity, The Academy of 

Management Review, Apr. 1984, at 235. 

30PPI Series ID for Small Electric Household 

Appliance: PCU33521033521014; PPI Series ID for 

Room Air Conditioner and Dehumidifiers: 

PCU3334153334156. (Available at: http://

www.bls.gov/ppi/). 31Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/ 

page/eia861.html. 

32 DOE–EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with 

Projections to 2040 (Available at: http://

www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/). 

TABLE IV.17—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *—Continued 

Inputs Source/method 

Annual Energy Use ......................... The total annual energy use multiplied by the hours per year. Average number of hours based on field 

data. 

Variability: Based on the 2009 RECS. 

Energy Prices .................................. Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 data for 2012. 

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 27 regions. 

Variability: By census region. 

Energy Price Trends ....................... Energy: Forecasted using AEO 2015 price forecasts. 

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

Product Lifetime .............................. Portable dehumidifiers: used lifetime from the previous DOE rulemaking for dehumidifiers. 

Whole-home dehumidifiers: applied the lifetime parameters derived for room air conditioners. 

Discount Rates ................................ Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board’s 

SCF ** for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010. 

Projected Compliance Date ............ 2019 

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. 

** Survey of Consumer Finances. 

1. Product Cost 

To calculate consumer product costs, 

DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in 

the engineering analysis by the markups 

described above (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. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

projected future dehumidifier prices 

using a trend based on the appropriate 

Producer Price Index (PPI) series. 

AHAM submitted a comment on the 

preliminary analysis opposing the use of 

experience curves to project future 

product prices. (AHAM, No. 22 at pp. 6– 

7) 

There is extensive literature 

supporting the use of experience curves 

(also known as learning curves) for a 

broad range of products. The approach 

that DOE has used in some rulemakings 

to derive an experience rate (defined as 

the fractional reduction in price 

expected from each doubling of 

cumulative production) is consistent 

with the methods used in numerous 

studies.29 However, the historical 

shipment data for dehumidifiers are too 

limited to construct a robust cumulative 

production estimation for these 

products. Instead, DOE retained the 

approach using an exponential fit of 

historic PPI data. PPI data specific to 

residential dehumidifiers were not 

available, so DOE used the Small 

Electric Household Appliances PPI 

(1983 to 2012) from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics for portable dehumidifiers, 

and the Room Air Conditioners and 

Dehumidifiers PPI (1990 to 2009) for 

whole-home dehumidifiers.30 The 

average annual rate of price decline, 

adjusted for inflation, in the default case 

is 2.02 percent for portable 

dehumidifiers and 2.23 percent for 

whole-home dehumidifiers. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

product. DOE used data from the 2013 

RSMeans Residential Cost Data book to 

estimate the baseline installation cost 

for whole-home dehumidifiers. DOE 

found no evidence that installation costs 

would be impacted with increased 

efficiency levels. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each sampled household, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

a residential dehumidifier at different 

efficiency levels using the approach 

described above in section IV.E of this 

notice. 

4. Energy Prices 

DOE derived average annual 

residential electricity prices for 27 

geographic regions using data from 

EIA’s Form EIA–861 database.31 DOE 

calculated an average annual regional 

residential price by: (1) Estimating an 

average residential price for each utility 

in the region (by dividing the residential 

revenues by residential sales); and (2) 

weighting each utility by the number of 

residential consumers it served in that 

region. The NOPR analysis used data 

from 2012. 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the average 

regional energy prices by the forecast of 

annual change in national-average 

residential energy price in the reference 

case from AEO 2015, which has an end 

year of 2040.32 To estimate price trends 

after 2040, DOE used the average annual 

rate of change in prices from 2020 to 

2040. 

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. 

During the 2013 preliminary analysis 

phase of the rulemaking, DOE requested 

information as to whether maintenance 

and repair costs are a function of 

efficiency level and product class. 

Manufacturers responded that these 

costs would not increase with 

efficiency. As a result, DOE assumed 

that repair and maintenance costs do 

not scale with the efficiency of 

residential dehumidifiers. 

6. Product Lifetime 

For portable dehumidifiers, DOE used 

lifetime estimates from the previous 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31669 

33 DOE-Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products, Technical Support Document: Energy 

Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment, Residential 

Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products, 

and Commercial Clothes Washers (2009) (Available 

at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D

=EERE-2006-STD-0127-0097). 

34 DOE-Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products, Technical Support Document: Energy 

Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment, Residential 

Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners (2011) 

(Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!

documentDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0053). 

35Two older versions of the SCF are also 

available, 1989 and 1992, but these surveys are not 

used in this analysis because they do not provide 

all of the necessary types of data (e.g., credit card 

interest rates). DOE concludes that the 15-year span 

covered by the six surveys included is sufficiently 

representative of recent debt and equity shares and 

interest rates. 

DOE rulemaking for dehumidifiers.33

DOE assumed whole-home 

dehumidifiers have the same life span 

as residential room air conditioners and 

applied the lifetime parameters derived 

for room air conditioners in the 2011 

rulemaking to whole-home 

dehumidifiers.34 The analysis yielded 

an estimate of mean lifetime of 

approximately 11 years for portable 

dehumidifiers and approximately 19 

years for whole-home dehumidifiers. 

DOE also used the data to develop a 

survival function that was incorporated 

as a probability distribution in the LCC 

analysis. See chapter 8, section 8.2.2.8 

of the NOPR TSD for further details on 

the method and sources DOE used to 

develop product lifetimes. 

7. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates appropriate to 

households to estimate the present 

value of future operating costs. DOE 

estimated a distribution of residential 

discount rates for dehumidifiers based 

on consumer financing costs and 

opportunity cost of funds related to 

appliance energy cost savings and 

maintenance costs. 

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 and 

maintenance costs. DOE then 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 Survey 

of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1995, 

1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010.35

Using the SCF and other sources, DOE 

then 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 class, is 5.0 percent. 

See chapter 8, section 8.2.3 of the NOPR 

TSD for further details on the 

development of consumer discount 

rates. 

8. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution 

To accurately estimate the share of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

standard at a particular efficiency level, 

DOE’s LCC analysis considered the 

projected distribution of product 

efficiencies in the base case (i.e., the 

case without new energy efficiency 

standards). DOE refers to this 

distribution of product efficiencies as a 

base-case efficiency distribution. 

To estimate the efficiency distribution 

of standard residential dehumidifiers for 

2014, DOE analyzed its Compliance 

Certification Database for residential 

dehumidifiers. To project the efficiency 

trend between 2014 and 2019, DOE used 

a 0.25 percent annual increase in 

shipment-weighted efficiency, as 

discussed in section IV.H. The 

estimated shares for the base-case 

efficiency distribution for residential 

dehumidifiers are shown in Table IV.18. 

See chapter 8, section 8.2.5 of the NOPR 

TSD for further information on the 

derivation of the base-case efficiency 

distributions. 

TABLE IV.18—RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIER BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION BY PRODUCT CLASS IN 2019 

PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 

≤30.00 pints/day 30.01–45.00 pints/day >45.00 pints/day ≤8.0 ft 3 >8.0 ft 3

EL Share 

(%) EL Share (%) EL Share (%) EL Share (%) EL Share (%) 

0 ............... 11 0 0 0 57 0 75 0 31 

1 ............... 23 1 0 1 20 1 25 1 46 

2 ............... 0 2 94 2 23 2 0 2 23 

3 ............... 66 3 2 3 0 .................... .................... 3 0 

4 ............... 0 4 4 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

9. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

The PBP is the amount of time it takes 

the consumer to recover the additional 

installed cost of more efficient products, 

compared to baseline products, through 

energy cost savings. PBPs are expressed 

in years. PBPs 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 EL are the change in total installed 

cost of the product and the change in 

the first-year annual operating 

expenditures relative to the baseline. 

The PBP calculation uses the same 

inputs as the LCC analysis, except that 

discount rates are not needed. 

10. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

Period 

As noted above, EPCA, as amended, 

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 

EL, DOE determined the value of the 

first year’s energy savings by 

multiplying the energy savings by the 

average energy price forecast for the 

year in which compliance with the 

amended standard would be required. 

The results of the rebuttable 

presumption PBP analysis are 

summarized in section V.B.1.c of this 

proposed rule. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31670 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

37For the NIA, DOE adjusts the installed cost data 

from the LCC analysis to exclude sales tax, which 

is a transfer. 

G. Shipments 

DOE uses forecasts of annual product 

shipments to calculate the national 

impacts of potential amended 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. 

To determine shipments to the 

replacement market, DOE estimated a 

stock of dehumidifiers by vintage by 

integrating historical shipments starting 

from 1972. Over time, some units are 

retired and removed from the stock, 

triggering the shipment of a replacement 

unit. Depending on the vintage, a 

certain percentage of each type of unit 

will fail and need to be replaced. DOE 

based the retirement function on a 

probability distribution for the product 

lifetime that was developed in the LCC 

analysis. The shipments model assumes 

that no units are retired below a 

minimum product lifetime and that all 

units are retired before exceeding a 

maximum product lifetime. 

To calibrate the estimated shipments 

with the historical data, DOE introduced 

into the model a market segment 

identified as existing households 

without dehumidifiers, also referred to 

as first-time owners. Based on the 

calibration, DOE estimated that 0.35 

percent of existing households without 

a dehumidifier would annually 

purchase this product over the analysis 

period, 2019–2048. 

Because the incremental cost of 

products meeting the considered 

standard levels is very low relative to 

the operating cost savings (see section 

V.B.1.a), DOE assumed that shipments 

would not be affected by the proposed 

standards. For details on the shipments 

analysis, see chapter 9 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

AHAM stated that the historical 

shipments and the projected shipments 

do not seem to be logically connected— 

the historical shipments are jagged, 

going up and down, sometimes 

dramatically, while the future 

shipments show a relatively smooth, 

upward curve. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 7) 

DOE used the average trend of historical 

shipments to forecast shipments for all 

dehumidifier product classes. The 

smoothed-line forecast is a product of 

this approach. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the NES and the 

national NPV of total consumer costs 

and savings that would be expected to 

result from new or amended standards 

at specific efficiency levels. DOE 

calculates the NES and NPV based on 

projections of annual appliance 

shipments, along with the annual 

energy consumption and total installed 

cost data from the energy use and LCC 

analyses.37 For the present analysis, 

DOE forecasted the energy savings, 

operating cost savings, product costs, 

and NPV of consumer benefits over the 

lifetime of dehumidifiers sold from 2019 

through 2048. 

DOE evaluates the impacts of new and 

amended standards by comparing basecase projections with standards-case 

projections. The base-case projection 

characterizes energy use and consumer 

costs for each product class in the 

absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE compares 

these projections with projections 

characterizing the market for each 

product class if DOE adopted new or 

amended standards at specific energy 

ELs (i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) 

for that class. For the base-case forecast, 

DOE considers historical trends in 

efficiency and various forces that are 

likely to affect the mix of efficiencies 

over time. For the standards cases, DOE 

also considers how a given standard 

would likely affect the market shares for 

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.19 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.19—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs Method 

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

Projected Compliance Date of 

Standard.

2019 

Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies Shipment-Weighted Integrated Energy Factor (SWIEF) determined in 2014 for each of the considered 

products classes. Annual growth rate of 0.25 percent assumed for determining SWIEF between 2014 

and 2048. 

Standards-Case Forecasted Efficiencies.Roll-up scenario for 2019; efficiency improvement after 2019 based on 0.25 percent. 

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 forecast 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 Prices .................................. AEO 2015 forecasts (to 2040) and extrapolation through 2048. 

Energy site-to-power plant conversion.A time-series conversion factor derived from AEO 2014. 

Discount Rate ................................. Three and seven percent real. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31671 

38For more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An Overview, 

DOE/EIA–0581 (98) (Feb. 1998) (Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/). 

39 DOE-Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency 

Program for Consumer Products and Commercial 

and Industrial Equipment, Residential Clothes 

Dryers and Room Air Conditioners (2011) 

(Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!

documentDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0053). 

TABLE IV.19—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS—Continued 

Inputs Method 

Present Year ................................... Future costs and savings are discounted to 2014. 

1. National Energy Savings 

The NES analysis involves a 

comparison of national energy 

consumption of the considered products 

in each potential standards case (TSL) 

with consumption in the base 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). Vintage 

represents the age of the product. DOE 

calculated annual NES based on the 

difference in national energy 

consumption for the base case (without 

amended efficiency standards) and for 

each higher efficiency standard. 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 the 

AEO 2015 version of NEMS. Cumulative 

energy savings are the sum of the NES 

for each year over the timeframe of the 

analysis. 

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 NIA 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 the Federal Register in which 

DOE explained its determination that 

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 38 that EIA uses to prepare its 

Annual Energy Outlook. The approach 

used for deriving FFC measures of 

energy use and emissions is described 

in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. 

a. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case 

and Standards Cases 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency forecasted for 

the base case (without new or amended 

standards) and each of the standards 

cases. Section IV.F.8 of this notice 

describes how DOE developed a basecase energy efficiency distribution 

(which yields a shipment-weighted 

average efficiency) for each of the 

considered product classes for the first 

year of the forecast period. To project 

the trend in efficiency for residential 

dehumidifiers over the entire forecast 

period, DOE used a 0.25 percent annual 

increase based on the rate that was used 

for room air conditioners in DOE’s 2011 

rule making.39 This trend is described in 

chapter 10, section 10.2 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

DOE used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to 

establish the shipment-weighted 

efficiency for the year that standards are 

assumed to become effective (2019). In 

this scenario, product efficiencies in the 

base 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. 

To develop standards-case efficiency 

trends, DOE used an approach that 

assumes that the rate of adoption of 

more efficient products under the 

standards case occurs at a rate that 

ensures that the average total installed 

cost difference between the standards 

case and base case is constant over the 

entire forecast period. Because the total 

installed cost versus efficiency 

relationship for each product class 

demonstrates an increasing cost rate for 

more efficient products, the efficiency 

growth rate for each standards case is 

lower than the growth rate for the base 

case. For more information, see chapter 

10, section 10.2 of the NOPR TSD. 

2. 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 

savings in operating 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 base case and 

each standards case in total savings in 

operating costs and total increases in 

installed costs. DOE calculates operating 

cost savings over the life of each 

product shipped during the forecast 

period. 

As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this 

proposed rule, DOE developed 

residential dehumidifier price trends 

based on historical PPI data. Within the 

portable and whole-house product 

groups, DOE applied the same trends to 

forecast prices for each product class at 

each considered EL. By 2048, which is 

the end date of the forecast period, the 

average dehumidifier price is forecasted 

to drop 37 percent relative to 2013. 

DOE’s projection of product prices for 

residential dehumidifiers is described in 

further detail 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 forecasts on the consumer 

NPV for the considered TSLs for 

residential dehumidifiers. In addition to 

the default price trend, DOE considered 

two product price sensitivity cases: (1) 

A high price decline case based on an 

exponential fit using PPI data for 1988 

to 2013; and (2) a low price decline case 

based on an experience rate derived 

using PPI and shipments data for 1991 

to 2000. The derivation of these price 

trends and the results of these 

sensitivity cases are described in 

appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. 

The operating cost savings are energy 

cost savings, which 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 forecast of annual 

national-average residential energy price 

changes in the reference case from AEO 

2015, which has an end year of 2040. To 

estimate price trends after 2040, DOE 

used the average annual rate of change 

in prices from 2020 to 2040. As part of 

the NIA, DOE also analyzed scenarios 

that used inputs from the AEO 2015 

Low Economic Growth and High 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31672 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

40United States Office of Management and 

Budget, ‘‘Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis,’’ 

Section E (Sept. 17, 2003) (Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03- 

21.html.http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4/). 

41 65 FR 30836 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 

FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000). 

Economic Growth cases. Those cases 

have higher and lower 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 today’s 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 standards on 

consumers, DOE evaluates the impact 

on identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be disproportionately affected 

by a national standard. 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 low-income households and 

senior-only households. Chapter 11 in 

the NOPR TSD describes the consumer 

subgroup analysis. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifiers. The MIA has both 

quantitative and qualitative aspects and 

includes analyses of forecasted industry 

cash flows, the industry net present 

value (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 Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an 

industry cash flow model with inputs 

specific to this rulemaking. The key 

GRIM inputs include data on the 

industry cost structure, unit production 

costs, product shipments, manufacturer 

markups, and investments in R&D and 

manufacturing capital required to 

produce compliant products. The key 

GRIM outputs are the INPV and the 

impact to domestic manufacturing 

employment. The model estimates the 

impacts of more stringent energy 

conservation standards on a given 

industry by comparing changes in INPV 

and domestic manufacturing 

employment between the base case and 

the various TSLs in the standards case. 

To capture the uncertainty relating to 

manufacturer pricing strategy following 

amended standards, the GRIM estimates 

a range of possible impacts under 

different markup scenarios. 

The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses manufacturer characteristics 

and market trends. Specifically, the MIA 

considers such factors as 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, sections 12.1 and 12.2 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 residential dehumidifier 

manufacturing industry. This included a 

top-down analysis of residential 

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, including 

SEC 10–K filings, corporate annual 

reports, the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

Economic Census, and reports from 

Dunn & Bradstreet, to conduct the 

analysis. 

In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a framework industry cash flow analysis 

to quantify the impacts of new and 

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 effective 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) Create a need for increased 

investment; (2) raise production costs 

per unit; and (3) alter 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 residential 

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.4 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 (LVMs), niche 

players, or manufacturers exhibiting a 

cost structure that largely differs from 

the industry average. DOE identified 

one dehumidifier manufacturer 

subgroup (small businesses) for which 

average cost assumptions may not hold. 

Based on the size standards published 

by the Small Business Administration 

(SBA),41 to be categorized as a small 

business manufacturer of residential 

dehumidifiers under North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

codes 333415 (‘‘Air-Conditioning and 

Warm Air Heating Equipment and 

Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31673 

Equipment Manufacturing’’) or 335210 

(‘‘Small Electrical Appliance 

Manufacturing’’), a dehumidifier 

manufacturer and its affiliates may not 

employ more than 750 employees. The 

750-employee threshold includes all 

employees in a business’ parent 

company and any subsidiaries. Using 

this classification in conjunction with a 

search of industry databases and the 

SBA member directory, DOE identified 

five manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifiers that qualify as small 

businesses, the majority of which are 

manufacturers of whole-home and highcapacity portable dehumidifiers. 

The manufacturer subgroup analysis 

is discussed in greater detail in chapter 

12, section 12.6 of the NOPR TSD and 

in section V.B.2.d of this proposed rule. 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(GRIM) 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in industry cash flows resulting 

from amended energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM uses manufacturer 

costs, markups, shipments, and industry 

financial information to arrive at a series 

of base-case annual cash flows absent 

new or amended standards, beginning 

with the present year, 2014, and 

continuing through 2048. The GRIM 

then models changes in costs, 

investments, shipments, and 

manufacturer margins that may result 

from new or amended energy 

conservation standards and compares 

these results against those in the basecase forecast of annual cash flows. The 

primary quantitative output of the GRIM 

is the INPV, which DOE calculates by 

summing the stream of annual 

discounted cash flows over the full 

analysis period. For manufacturers of 

residential dehumidifiers, DOE used a 

real discount rate of 8.43 percent, the 

weighted-average cost of capital derived 

from industry financials and modified 

based on feedback received during 

confidential interviews with 

manufacturers. 

The GRIM calculates cash flows using 

standard accounting principles and 

compares changes in INPV between the 

base case and the various TSLs. The 

difference in INPV between the base 

case and a standards case represents the 

financial impact of the amended 

standard on manufacturers at that 

particular TSL. As discussed previously, 

DOE collected the necessary 

information to develop key GRIM inputs 

from a number of sources, including 

publicly available data and interviews 

with manufacturers (described in the 

next section). The GRIM results are 

shown in section V.B.2.a of this notice. 

Additional details about the GRIM can 

be found in chapter 12, sections 12.4 

and 12.5 of the NOPR TSD. 

a. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Key Inputs 

Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing a higher efficiency 

product is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing a baseline product 

due to the use of more complex and 

typically more costly components. The 

changes in the MPCs of the analyzed 

products can affect the revenues, gross 

margins, and cash flow of the industry, 

making product cost data key GRIM 

inputs for DOE’s analysis. For each EL 

for each product class, DOE used the 

MPCs developed in the engineering 

analysis, as described in section IV.C.2 

of this proposed rule and further 

detailed in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

Additionally, DOE used information 

from its teardown analysis, described in 

section IV.C of this proposed rule, to 

disaggregate the MPCs into material and 

labor costs. These cost breakdowns and 

equipment markups were validated with 

manufacturers during interviews. 

Base-Case Shipments Forecast 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues based on total unit shipment 

forecasts and the distribution of 

shipments by efficiency level. Changes 

in sales volumes and efficiency mix 

over time can significantly affect 

manufacturer finances. For this analysis, 

the GRIM used the NIA’s annual 

shipment forecasts derived from the 

shipments analysis from 2015 (the base 

year) to 2048 (the end of the analysis 

period). See chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD 

for additional details on the shipments 

analysis. 

Standards-Case Shipments Forecast 

For each standards case, the GRIM 

assumes a small, constant percentage 

shift in shipments to higher efficiency 

levels, reflecting the idea that some 

efficiency improvements will occur 

independent of amended standards. The 

GRIM also assumes all remaining 

shipments of products below the 

projected minimum standard levels 

would roll up (i.e., be added) to the 

standard efficiency levels in response to 

an increase in energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM also assumes that 

demand for higher-efficiency equipment 

(that is above the minimally compliant 

level) is a function of price, and is 

independent of the standard level. 

Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

Amended energy conservation 

standards may cause manufacturers to 

incur one-time conversion costs to bring 

their production facilities and product 

designs into compliance with the new 

standards. For the purpose of the MIA, 

DOE classified these one-time 

conversion costs into two major groups: 

(1) Product conversion costs and (2) 

capital conversion costs. Product 

conversion costs are one-time 

investments in research, development, 

testing, and marketing, focused on 

making product designs comply with 

the new energy conservation standard. 

Capital conversion expenditures are 

one-time investments in property, plant, 

and equipment to adapt or change 

existing production facilities so that 

new product designs can be fabricated 

and assembled. 

Stranded Assets 

If new or amended energy 

conservation standards require 

investment in new manufacturing 

capital, there also exists the possibility 

that they will render existing 

manufacturing capital obsolete. If the 

obsolete manufacturing capital is not 

fully depreciated at the time new or 

amended standards go into effect, these 

assets would be stranded and the 

manufacturer would have to write-down 

the residual value that had not yet been 

depreciated. 

DOE used multiple sources of data to 

evaluate the level of product and capital 

conversion costs and stranded assets 

manufacturers would likely face to 

comply with amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE used 

manufacturer interviews to gather data 

on the level of investment anticipated at 

each proposed efficiency level and 

validated these assumptions using 

estimates of capital requirements 

derived from the product teardown 

analysis and engineering model 

described in section IV.C of this 

proposed rule. These estimates were 

then aggregated and scaled to derive 

total industry estimates of product and 

capital conversion costs and to protect 

confidential information. 

In general, DOE assumes that all 

conversion-related investments occur 

between the year the final rule is 

published and the year by which 

manufacturers must comply with the 

new or amended standards. The 

investment figures used in the GRIM 

can be found in section V.B.2 of this 

proposed rule. For additional 

information on the estimated product 

conversion and capital conversion costs, 

see chapter 12, sections 12.4.7 and 

12.4.8 of the NOPR TSD. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31674 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

42 ‘‘Gross margin’’ is defined as revenues minus 

cost of goods sold. On a unit basis, gross margin is 

selling price minus manufacturer production cost. 

In the GRIMs, markups determine the gross margin 

because various markups are applied to the 

manufacturer production costs to reach 

manufacturer selling price. 

b. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Scenarios 

Base-Case Markup 

As discussed in section IV.D of this 

notice, MSPs include direct 

manufacturing production costs (i.e., 

labor, material, overhead, and 

depreciation 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. Based on publicly 

available financial information for 

manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifiers and comments from 

manufacturer interviews, DOE assumed 

the industry average base-case markup 

on production costs to be 1.45. This 

markup takes into account the twotiered sourcing structure of the small 

portable dehumidifier segment, detailed 

below, in addition to the traditional 

one-tiered structure of the high-capacity 

portable and whole-home dehumidifier 

segment. The majority of the market for 

the lower-capacity portable product 

classes (product classes 1 and 2) are 

manufactured under contract by an 

overseas original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM). The engineering 

analysis, as detailed in chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD, estimates the cost of 

manufacturing at the OEM. This 

production cost is marked up once by 

the OEM to the company contracting its 

manufacturer and again by the 

contracting company who imports the 

product and sells it to retailers. For the 

small portable dehumidifier segment, 

the industry average baseline markup 

breaks down as follows: 

TABLE IV.20—INDUSTRY-AVERAGE

BASELINE MARKUPS

OEM to Contracting Company Markup .................................................... 1.20 

Contracting Company to First Customer Markup .................................. 1.21 

Overall OEM to First Customer Markup .................................................... 1.45 

Markup Scenarios 

Modifying the aforementioned basecase markups in the standards case 

yields different sets of impacts on 

manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE 

modeled two standards-case markup 

scenarios to represent the 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 42

(percentage) scenario; and (2) a 

preservation of per-unit operating 

profits scenario. These scenarios lead to 

different markups values that, when 

applied to the MPCs, result in varying 

revenue and cash flow impacts. 

The preservation of gross margin as a 

percentage of revenues markup scenario 

assumes that the baseline markup of 

1.45 is maintained for all products in 

the standards case. Typically, this 

scenario represents the upper bound of 

industry profitability as manufacturers 

are able to fully pass through additional 

costs due to standards to their 

customers under this scenario. 

The preservation of per-unit operating 

profits markup scenario is similar to the 

preservation of gross margin as a 

percentage of revenues markup scenario 

with the exception that in the standards 

case, minimally compliant products lose 

a fraction of the baseline markup. 

Typically, this scenario represents the 

lower bound profitability and a more 

substantial impact on the industry as 

manufacturers accept a lower margin in 

an attempt to offer price competitive 

entry level products while maintaining 

the same level of absolute operating 

profits, on a per-unit basis, that they 

saw prior to amended standards. Under 

this scenario, gross margin as a 

percentage decreases in the standards 

case. 

3. Discussion of Comments 

During the public comment period 

following the preliminary analysis 

public meeting, trade associations and 

small business manufacturers of 

residential dehumidifiers provided 

several comments on the potential 

impact of amended energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers. 

In response to the May 2014 Notice, 

AHAM suggested that Canada’s Energy 

Efficiency Regulations mandate 

standards for dehumidifiers that are 

harmonized with the existing standards 

in the United States. For other products, 

AHAM stated that the Canadian 

standards currently or soon will lag 

behind the U.S. standards, even though 

Canada has expressed its desire for 

harmonization. AHAM believes that this 

disharmony will result in added burden 

for manufacturers and confusion to 

consumers. AHAM encouraged DOE to 

work closely with Natural Resources 

Canada (NRCan) as it promulgates 

revised dehumidifier standards so that 

NRCan can publish harmonized 

Canadian standards with the same 

projected compliance date as in the 

United States. AHAM stated that it will 

work with NRCan and DOE to 

accomplish this goal. (AHAM, No. 22 at 

pp. 2–3) 

Therma-Stor commented that changes 

to the testing and rating procedures may 

lead to confusion in the marketplace as 

the public has become accustomed to 

the current dehumidifier rating scheme. 

Therma-Stor also commented that it will 

be necessary to educate dealers and 

consumers about a revised rating 

scheme which substantially changes the 

capacity and efficiency ratings of each 

dehumidifier model. As a small 

manufacturer, Therma-Stor stated that it 

has limited engineering design, 

manufacturing, and marketing resources 

at its disposal. Therma-Stor typically 

maintains and manufactures a given 

dehumidifier model design for several 

years. According to Therma-Stor, a 

substantial change in the test procedure 

may require it to re-engineer its current 

product designs and revise related 

literature. Due to their small size and 

limited resources, this re-engineering 

may require more time for small 

manufacturers than larger entities with 

larger resource pools (Therma-Stor, No. 

21 at p. 2) and may place a larger 

burden on small manufacturers. 

Therma-Stor also expressed concern 

about the divergence of rating test 

procedures between DOE and EPA 

ENERGY STAR programs. Therma-Stor 

believes that DOE and EPA should work 

together to harmonize the rating test 

procedures to minimize the cost, time, 

and complexity of compliance for 

manufacturers. Therma-Stor further 

requested that if the rating test 

procedures are significantly revised, a 

reasonable ‘‘grace period’’ between the 

publication of the final rule and 

enforcement of the rule should be 

provided to allow small manufacturers 

to make necessary revisions to their 

products and literature to achieve 

compliance. Id. 

DOE acknowledges that the new test 

procedure will result in a new rating 

system that will need to be properly 

conveyed to consumers via updated 

sizing recommendations in 

manufacturer product literature and 

Web sites. DOE notes that all 

manufacturers will be subject to the 

same shift in rating system. 

While DOE also acknowledges that 

the presence of multiple standards and 

test procedures may place a 

disproportionate burden on small 

business manufacturers, DOE notes that 

EPA typically adopts the most recent 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31675 

DOE test procedure for the ENERGY 

STAR program. See sections V.B.2.d and 

VI.B of this proposed rule for a 

discussion of the impacts on small 

business manufacturers. Feedback from 

manufacturers also suggests that a 3- 

year period for compliance after the 

final rule is published is reasonable. 

Aprilaire noted that energy 

conservation standards for whole-home 

dehumidifier products could negatively 

impact the development of this segment 

of the dehumidifier industry. Aprilaire 

explained that, as the whole-home 

dehumidifier segment is a relatively 

new industry, innovative products are 

being developed to help control wholehome latent conditions with minimal 

energy use. According to Aprilaire, this 

is achieved through combinations of 

application, latent removal techniques, 

and control methods and algorithms. 

Aprilaire believes that prematurely 

placing rules and tests that cannot 

anticipate some of these product designs 

and applications could limit the number 

of products on the market and hinder 

innovation. (Aprilaire, No. 20 at p. 2) 

DOE understands that amended 

conservation standards will require 

manufacturers to divert at least a 

portion of R&D and/or capital 

expenditure resources to standards 

compliance in the years leading up to 

the projected compliance date, 

effectively taking these resources away 

from other projects. The effect of these 

investments on manufacturer cash flows 

is discussed further in section V.B.2.a of 

this proposed rule. 

Aprilaire also commented that it 

believes DOE is singling out wholehome dehumidifiers for this rule, and 

ignoring other products which have 

functions built into them to obtain 

whole-home dehumidification, such as 

air conditioners. According to Aprilaire, 

separating one product from a larger 

category places an undue and unfair 

burden on whole-home dehumidifier 

manufacturers. Aprilaire referenced 

EPA document 402–F–13053, saying 

that EPA recognizes that there are 

multiple methods of controlling 

humidity, but the proposed standard 

only restricts the stand-alone wholehome dehumidification method. 

(Aprilaire, No. 20 at p. 2) 

DOE regulations already cover central 

air conditioners and room air 

conditioners, and manufacturers of 

these products must demonstrate 

compliance with current energy 

conservation standards codified in 10 

CFR 430.32(c) and (b), respectively. 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

To inform the MIA, DOE interviewed 

manufacturers with an estimated 

combined market share of 

approximately 70 percent. The 

information gathered during these 

interviews enabled DOE to tailor the 

GRIM to reflect the unique financial 

characteristics of the residential 

dehumidifier industry. These 

confidential interviews provided 

information that DOE used to evaluate 

the impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on manufacturer 

cash flows, manufacturing capacities, 

and employment levels. 

During the interviews, DOE asked 

manufacturers to describe the major 

issues they anticipate to result from the 

energy conservation standards proposed 

in this rulemaking. The following 

sections describe the most significant 

issues identified by manufacturers. DOE 

also includes additional concerns in 

chapter 12, section 12.3 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

Consumer Confusion 

The majority of manufacturers 

interviewed emphasized concerns over 

the impact of new test conditions in the 

DOE dehumidifier test procedure on the 

rated capacity of their products. One 

manufacturer noted a 60-percent to 70- 

percent decrease in capacity and 

efficiency due to lower ambient 

temperatures for testing. Some 

manufacturers fear that a shift in rated 

capacity resulting from a change in test 

procedure will lead to confusion in the 

market, as consumers find it important 

to have the same apparent capacity in a 

replacement residential dehumidifier, 

even if it is simply a larger unit at a 

lower rating condition. Also, 

dehumidifiers with smaller capacities 

cannot reach the same efficiency as 

higher-capacity units due to limitations 

of the vapor-compression cycle, because 

the parasitic losses (i.e., the power draw 

not associated with running the 

compressor during dehumidification 

mode) make it harder to maintain 

efficiency with smaller compressors. 

One manufacturer estimated that a 

multi-million dollar investment would 

be necessary to redesign products that 

would maintain customer perception of 

rated capacities. That manufacturer 

went on to note that if it is unable to 

produce comparable products at the 

same effective capacity, it would 

consider exiting the market. 

Other manufacturers indicated that as 

product ratings are modified to reflect 

the test results at the lower ambient 

temperature, the whole product 

classification system will need to be 

revisited, which will require a 

substantial investment in consumer 

education. 

Consumer Utility 

Multiple manufacturers interviewed 

expressed concerns that an amended 

energy conservation standard for 

residential dehumidifiers would have 

an adverse impact on price, noise level, 

and size, and would thus compromise 

consumer utility. Manufacturers are 

concerned that residential 

dehumidifiers would need to become 

physically larger to deliver the same 

moisture removal capacity to comply 

with new amended testing and energy 

conservation standards. For customers 

with space constraints, finding a 

product that best fits their needs may be 

more difficult under an amended 

standard. For example, some wholehome dehumidifiers must fit into a 

small attic or crawl space. If amended 

energy conservation standards for 

whole-home products cannot be met 

within the size constraints associated 

with this type of installation, part of the 

whole-home market segment may move 

to portable products, reducing consumer 

utility by forcing the unit into the living 

space. Additionally, larger portable 

dehumidifiers are already cumbersome 

to move around, making them close to 

the limit of what is considered portable. 

As such, consumers may be forced to 

purchase a lower-capacity dehumidifier 

or alternative product. 

Impacts on Profitability 

During interviews, many 

manufacturers stated that an industrywide price increase of 25 percent would 

have major negative impacts on the 

portable dehumidifier market. 

Manufacturers went on to note that a 

price increase of 50 percent or more 

would cause the market to collapse 

entirely. A whole-home dehumidifier 

manufacturer stated that a 10-percent 

cost increase would have a significant 

impact on the whole-home market 

because any increases in manufacturer 

production costs are magnified due to 

the two-tiered distribution channel that 

is characteristic of the whole-home 

market (i.e., OEM to distributor to 

dealer). Among manufacturers, it was 

agreed that consumers find a product’s 

price to be the most important aspect 

when considering dehumidifier 

purchases. Relatedly, one manufacturer 

suggested that as prices increase, 

consumers may opt to rent units asneeded, instead of buying one. 

Accordingly, manufacturers expect a 

negative impact on profitability as 

revenues decline following any 

amended energy conservation standard 

which would raise prices for residential 

dehumidifiers. Similar impacts on 

profitability are expected if 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31676 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

43 DOE did not use AEO 2015 for the emissions 

analysis because it does not provide the side cases 

that DOE uses to derive marginal emissions factors. 

44Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climate

leadership/inventory/ghg-emissions.html. 

45 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC), 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.–K. Plattner, M. Tignor, 

S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex 

and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 

NY, USA. Chapter 8. 

46See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 

47See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 

696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012).2012), cert. granted, 

81 U.S.L.W. 3567, 81 U.S.L.W. 3696, 81 U.S.L.W. 

3702 (U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12–1182). 

48See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 

696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012).2012), cert. granted, 

81 U.S.L.W. 3567, 81 U.S.L.W. 3696, 81 U.S.L.W. 

3702 (U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12–1182). 

49See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 134 

S. Ct. 1584, 1610 (U.S. 2014). The Supreme Court 

held in part that EPA’s methodology for quantifying 

emissions that must be eliminated in certain States 

due to their impacts in other downwind States was 

based on a permissible, workable, and equitable 

interpretation of the Clean Air Act provision that 

provides statutory authority for CSAPR. 

50See Georgia v. EPA, Order (D.C. Cir. filed 

October 23, 2014) (No. 11–1302). 

manufacturers maintain current prices 

while absorbing the higher costs 

associated with the design and 

manufacture of higher efficiency 

products. 

Impacts on Small Businesses 

One small manufacturer noted that it 

and its competitors in the whole-home 

segment would be disproportionately 

impacted by an amended energy 

conservation standard. Small business 

manufacturers have fewer human and 

capital resources than larger, more 

diversified portable unit manufacturers. 

Additionally, due to the low-volume 

nature of the residential whole-home 

dehumidifier market, small business 

manufacturers of whole-home products 

are disadvantaged in achieving the scale 

needed to exert purchasing power in 

sourcing components from vendors. One 

small business manufacturer noted that 

its lack of influence on suppliers 

ultimately impacts its ability to compete 

with larger manufacturers. 

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 all species 

due to ‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel 

production chain. These upstream 

activities comprise extraction, 

processing, and transporting fuels to the 

site of combustion. The associated 

emissions are referred to as upstream 

emissions. 

The analysis of power sector 

emissions uses marginal emissions 

factors calculated using a methodology 

based on results published for the AEO 

2014 reference case and a set of side 

cases that implement a variety of 

efficiency-related policies.43 The 

methodology is described in chapter 15 

of the NOPR TSD. 

Combustion emissions of CH4 and 

N2O are estimated using emissions 

intensity factors published by the EPA, 

GHG Emissions Factors Hub.44 The FFC 

upstream emissions are estimated based 

on the methodology described in 

chapter 15. The upstream emissions 

include both emissions from fuel 

combustion during extraction, 

processing and transportation of fuel, 

and ‘‘fugitive’’ emissions (direct leakage 

to the atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2. 

The emissions intensity factors are 

expressed in terms of physical units per 

MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. 

Total emissions reductions are 

estimated using the energy savings 

calculated in the national impact 

analysis. 

For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated 

emissions reduction in tons and also in 

terms of units of carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted 

to CO2eq by multiplying each ton of gas 

by the gas’ global warming potential 

(GWP) over a 100 year time horizon. 

Based on the Fifth Assessment Report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change,45 DOE used GWP values of 28 

for CH4 and 265 for N2O. 

The AEO 2014 projections incorporate 

the projected impacts of existing air 

quality regulations on emissions. AEO 

2014 generally represents current 

legislation and environmental 

regulations, including recent 

government actions, for which 

implementing regulations were 

available as of October 31, 2013. DOE’s 

estimation of impacts accounts for the 

presence of the emissions control 

programs discussed in the following 

paragraphs. 

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 28 eastern states 

and DC were also limited under the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR; 70 FR 

25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an 

allowance-based trading program that 

operates along with the Title IV 

program. CAIR was remanded to the 

EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit but it 

remained in effect.46 In 2011 EPA issued 

a replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 

48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). On August 21, 

2012, the DC Circuit issued a decision 

to vacate CSAPR47 and ordered EPA to 

continue administering CAIR.48 On 

April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court 

reversed the judgment of the DC Circuit 

and remanded the case for further 

proceedings consistent with the 

Supreme Court’s opinion.49 On October 

23, 2014, the DC Circuit lifted the stay 

of CSAPR.50 Pursuant to this action, 

CSAPR went into effect (and CAIR 

ceased to be in effect) as of January 1, 

2015. 

Because AEO 2014 was prepared prior 

to the Supreme Court’s opinion, it 

assumed that CAIR remains a binding 

regulation through 2040. Thus, DOE’s 

analysis used emissions factors that 

assume that CAIR, not CSAPR, is the 

regulation in force. However, the 

difference between CAIR and CSAPR is 

not relevant for the purpose of DOE’s 

analysis of emissions impacts from 

energy conservation standards. 

The attainment of emissions caps is 

typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. 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 

any regulated EGU. In past rulemakings, 

DOE recognized that there was 

uncertainty about the effects of 

efficiency standards on SO2 emissions 

covered by the existing cap-and-trade 

system, but it concluded that negligible 

reductions in power sector SO2

emissions would occur as a result of 

standards. 

Beginning in 2016, however, SO2

emissions will fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 

(Feb. 16, 2012). In the final MATS rule, 

EPA established a standard for hydrogen 

chloride as a surrogate for acid gas 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP), and also 

established a standard for SO2 (a nonHAP acid gas) as an alternative 

equivalent surrogate standard for acid 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31677 

51CSAPR also applies to NOX and it would 

supersede the regulation of NOX under CAIR. As 

stated previously, the current analysis assumes that 

CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force. The 

difference between CAIR and CSAPR with regard to 

DOE’s analysis of NOX emissions is slight. 

52National Research Council, Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use, National Academies Press 

(2009). 

gas HAP. The same controls are used to 

reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; 

thus, SO2 emissions will be reduced as 

a result of the control technologies 

installed on coal-fired power plants to 

comply with the MATS requirements 

for acid gas. AEO 2014 assumes that, in 

order to continue operating, coal plants 

must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

systems installed by 2016. Both 

technologies, which are used to reduce 

acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2

emissions. Under the MATS, emissions 

will be far below the cap established by 

CAIR, so 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 any 

regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes 

that energy efficiency standards will 

reduce SO2 emissions in 2016 and 

beyond. 

CAIR established a cap on NOX

emissions in 28 eastern States and the 

District of Columbia.51 Energy 

conservation standards are expected to 

have little effect on NOX emissions in 

those States covered by CAIR because 

excess NOX emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand could be used to permit 

offsetting increases in NOX emissions 

from other facilities. However, 

standards would be expected to reduce 

NOX emissions in the States not affected 

by the caps, so DOE estimated NOX

emissions reductions from the standards 

considered in today’s NOPR for these 

States. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE 

estimated mercury emissions reduction 

using emissions factors based on AEO 

2014, which incorporates the MATS. 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

proposed rule, DOE considered the 

estimated monetary benefits from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX 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 

equipment shipped in the forecast 

period for each TSL. This section 

summarizes the basis for the monetary 

values used for each of these emissions 

and presents the values considered in 

this NOPR. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SCC is an estimate of the 

monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 

to include (but is not limited to) 

climate-change-related changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health, 

property damages from increased flood 

risk, and the value of ecosystem 

services. Estimates of the SCC are 

provided in dollars per metric ton of 

CO2. A domestic SCC value is meant to 

reflect the value of damages in the 

United States resulting from a unit 

change in CO2 emissions, while a global 

SCC value is meant to reflect the value 

of damages worldwide. 

Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 5, 1993), 

agencies must, to the extent permitted 

by law, ‘‘assess both the costs and the 

benefits of the intended regulation and, 

recognizing that some costs and benefits 

are difficult to quantify, propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs.’’ 

The purpose of the SCC estimates 

presented here is to allow agencies to 

incorporate the monetized social 

benefits of reducing CO2 emissions into 

cost-benefit analyses of regulatory 

actions. The estimates are presented 

with an acknowledgement of the many 

uncertainties involved and with a clear 

understanding that they should be 

updated over time to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

As part of the interagency process that 

developed these SCC estimates, 

technical experts from numerous 

agencies met on a regular basis to 

consider public comments, explore the 

technical literature in relevant fields, 

and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. The main objective of this 

process was to develop a range of SCC 

values using a defensible set of input 

assumptions grounded in the existing 

scientific and economic literatures. In 

this way, key uncertainties and model 

differences transparently and 

consistently inform the range of SCC 

estimates used in the rulemaking 

process. 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of CO2

emissions, the analyst faces a number of 

challenges. A report from the National 

Research Council 52 points out that any 

assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 

speculation, and lack of information 

about: (1) Future emissions of GHGs; (2) 

the effects of past and future emissions 

on the climate system; (3) the impact of 

changes in climate on the physical and 

biological environment; and (4) the 

translation of these environmental 

impacts into economic damages. As a 

result, any effort to quantify and 

monetize the harms associated with 

climate change will raise questions of 

science, economics, and ethics and 

should be viewed as provisional. 

Despite the limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing CO2

emissions. The agency can estimate the 

benefits from reduced (or costs from 

increased) emissions in any future year 

by multiplying the change in emissions 

in that year by the SCC values 

appropriate for that year. The NPV of 

the benefits can then be calculated by 

multiplying each of these future benefits 

by an appropriate discount factor and 

summing across all affected years. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science 

and economic understanding of climate 

change and its impacts on society 

improves over time. In the meantime, 

the interagency group will continue to 

explore the issues raised by this analysis 

and consider public comments as part of 

the ongoing interagency process. 

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon 

Values 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. To ensure consistency in 

how benefits are evaluated across 

Federal agencies, the Administration 

sought to develop a transparent and 

defensible method, specifically 

designed for the rulemaking process, to 

quantify avoided climate change 

damages from reduced CO2 emissions. 

The interagency group did not 

undertake any original analysis. Instead, 

it combined SCC estimates from the 

existing literature to use as interim 

values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The 

outcome of the preliminary assessment 

by the interagency group was a set of 

five interim values: Global SCC 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31678 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

53 It is recognized that this calculation for 

domestic values is approximate, provisional, and 

highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why 

domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 

net global damages over time. 

54Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United 

States Government (February 2010) (Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/

inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-forRIA.pdf). 

55Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government (May 

2013; revised November 2013) (Available at: http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/

inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf). 

estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, 

$33, $19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of 

CO2. These interim values represent the 

first sustained interagency effort within 

the U.S. government to develop an SCC 

for use in regulatory analysis. The 

results of this preliminary effort were 

presented in several proposed and final 

rules. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

After the release of the interim values, 

the interagency group reconvened on a 

regular basis to generate improved SCC 

estimates. Specially, the group 

considered public comments and 

further explored the technical literature 

in relevant fields. The interagency group 

relied on three integrated assessment 

models commonly used to estimate the 

SCC: The FUND, DICE, and PAGE 

models. These models are frequently 

cited in the peer-reviewed literature and 

were used in the last assessment of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). Each model was given 

equal weight in the SCC values that 

were developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different 

approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic 

damages. A key objective of the 

interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three 

models, while respecting the different 

approaches to quantifying damages 

taken by the key modelers in the field. 

An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of 

input parameters for these models: 

Climate sensitivity, socio-economic and 

emissions trajectories, and discount 

rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an 

input into all three models. In addition, 

the interagency group used a range of 

scenarios for the socio-economic 

parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features 

were left unchanged, relying on the 

model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments. 

The interagency group selected four 

sets of SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three sets of values are based 

on the average SCC from the three 

integrated assessment models, at 

discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. 

The fourth set, which represents the 

95th percentile SCC estimate across all 

three models at a 3-percent discount 

rate, was included to represent higherthan-expected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the 

SCC distribution. The values grow in 

real terms over time. Additionally, the 

interagency group determined that a 

range of values from 7 percent to 23 

percent should be used to adjust the 

global SCC to calculate domestic 

effects,53 although preference is given to 

consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. Table IV.21 

presents the values in the 2010 

interagency group report,54 which is 

reproduced in appendix 14A of the 

NOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV.21—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2010 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

[2007$ per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 

95th 

percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................................. 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 

2015 ................................................................................................................................. 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8 

2020 ................................................................................................................................. 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 

2025 ................................................................................................................................. 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4 

2030 ................................................................................................................................. 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 

2035 ................................................................................................................................. 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7 

2040 ................................................................................................................................. 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3 

2045 ................................................................................................................................. 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8 

2050 ................................................................................................................................. 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2 

The SCC values used for today’s 

notice were generated using the most 

recent versions of the three integrated 

assessment models that have been 

published in the peer-reviewed 

literature.55

Table IV.22 shows the updated sets of 

SCC estimates in 5-year increments from 

2010 to 2050. The full set of annual SCC 

estimates between 2010 and 2050 is 

reported in appendix 14B of the NOPR 

TSD. The central value that emerges is 

the average SCC across models at the 3- 

percent discount rate. However, for 

purposes of capturing the uncertainties 

involved in regulatory impact analysis, 

the interagency group emphasizes the 

importance of including all four sets of 

SCC values. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31679 

56http://www2.epa.gov/benmap/sector-basedpm25-benefit-ton-estimates 

TABLE IV.22 ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

[2007$ per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 

95th 

percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................................. 11 32 51 89 

2015 ................................................................................................................................. 11 37 57 109 

2020 ................................................................................................................................. 12 43 64 128 

2025 ................................................................................................................................. 14 47 69 143 

2030 ................................................................................................................................. 16 52 75 159 

2035 ................................................................................................................................. 19 56 80 175 

2040 ................................................................................................................................. 21 61 86 191 

2045 ................................................................................................................................. 24 66 92 206 

2050 ................................................................................................................................. 26 71 97 220 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

because they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned above points 

out that there is tension between the 

goal of producing quantified estimates 

of the economic damages from an 

incremental ton of carbon and the limits 

of existing efforts to model these effects. 

There are a number of analytical 

challenges that are being addressed by 

the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of 

the Federal agencies participating in the 

interagency process to estimate the SCC. 

The interagency group intends to 

periodically review and reconsider 

those estimates to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

values from the 2013 interagency report 

adjusted to 2013$ using the implicit 

price deflator for gross domestic product 

(GDP) from the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. For each of the four sets of 

SCC values, the values for emissions in 

2015 were $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 

per metric ton avoided (values 

expressed in 2013$). DOE derived 

values after 2050 using the relevant 

growth rates for the 2040–2050 period 

in the interagency update. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SCC value for that year in each of the 

four cases. 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 

SCC values in each case. 

2. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants 

As noted above, DOE has taken into 

account how amended energy 

conservation standards would reduce 

site NOX emissions nationwide and 

decrease power sector NOX emissions in 

those 22 States not affected by the CAIR. 

DOE estimated the monetized value of 

net NOX emissions reductions resulting 

from each of the TSLs considered for 

today’s NOPR based on estimates 

developed by EPA for 2016, 2020, 2025, 

and 2030.56 The values reflect estimated 

mortality and morbidity per ton of 

directly emitted NOX reduced by 

electricity generating units. EPA 

developed estimates using a 3-percent 

and a 7-percent discount rate to 

discount future emissions-related costs. 

The values in 2016 are $5,483/ton using 

a 3-percent discount rate and $4,850/ton 

using a 7-percent discount rate (2013$). 

DOE extrapolated values after 2030 

using the average annual rate of growth 

in 2016–2030. DOE multiplied the 

emissions reduction (tons) in each year 

by the associated $/ton values, and then 

discounted each series using discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as 

appropriate. 

DOE is evaluating appropriate 

monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg 

emissions in energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. DOE has not 

included monetization of those 

emissions in the current analysis. 

AHAM continues to believe that 

monetization of avoided CO2 emissions 

should include a more comprehensive 

analysis to understand the total 

environmental impact. It stated that any 

CO2 analysis should include CO2

emissions that are caused indirectly, as 

well as directly, from a standards 

change, such as increased carbon 

emissions required to manufacture a 

given standard level, the increased 

transportation and related emissions 

required for a given standard level, and 

reduced carbon emissions from peak 

load reductions. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 7) 

In response, DOE notes that EPCA 

directs DOE to consider the total 

projected amount of energy, or as 

applicable, water, savings likely to 

result directly from the imposition of 

the standard when determining whether 

a standard is economically justified. (42 

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

interprets this to include energy used in 

the generation, transmission, and 

distribution of fuels used by appliances 

or equipment. In addition, DOE is using 

the FFC measure, which includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

fuels. DOE’s current accounting of 

primary energy savings and the FFC 

measure are directly linked to the 

energy used by appliances or 

equipment. DOE believes that energy 

used in manufacturing or transporting 

appliances or equipment falls outside 

the boundaries of ‘‘directly’’ as intended 

by EPCA. Thus, DOE did not consider 

such energy use and air emissions in the 

NIA or in the emissions analysis. DOE’s 

analysis does account for impacts on 

CO2 emissions from electricity load 

reduction. 

AHAM stated that DOE should wait 

for comments on the 2013 interagency 

report to be resolved before it relies on 

the 2013 estimates, and, until that time 

DOE should rely on the 2010 estimates 

as it has done in rulemakings prior to 

May 2013. (AHAM, No. 22 at p. 7) 

The 2013 report provides an update of 

the SCC estimates based solely on the 

latest peer-reviewed version of the 

models, replacing model versions that 

were developed up to ten years ago in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31680 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

57 DOE did not use AEO 2015 for the analysis 

because it does not provide the side cases that DOE 

uses to derive marginal impact factors. 

58 Data on industry employment, hours, labor 

compensation, value of production, and the implicit 

price deflator for output for these industries are 

available upon request by calling the Division of 

Industry Productivity Studies (202–691–5618) or by 

sending a request by email to dipsweb@bls.gov. 

59See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional 

Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional 

Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II), U.S. 

Department of Commerce (1992). 

60 J. M. Roop, M. J. Scott, O.V. Livingston, P.J. 

Balducci, J.M. Roop, and R. W. Schultz, ImSET 3.1: 

Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory (2009) (Available at: 

www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/

technical_reports/PNNL-18412.pdf). 

a rapidly evolving field. It does not 

revisit other assumptions with regard to 

the discount rate, reference case 

socioeconomic and emission scenarios, 

or equilibrium climate sensitivity. 

Improvements in the way damages are 

modeled are confined to those that have 

been incorporated into the latest 

versions of the models by the 

developers themselves in the peerreviewed literature. Given the above, 

using the 2010 estimates would be 

inconsistent with DOE’s objective of 

using the best available information in 

its analyses. 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

several effects on the power generation 

industry that would result from the 

adoption of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. In the utility 

impact analysis, DOE analyzes the 

changes in installed electrical capacity 

and generation that would result for 

each TSL. The analysis is based on 

published output from the NEMS 

associated with AEO 2014. NEMS 

produce the AEO reference case as well 

as a number of other cases that estimate 

the economy-wide impacts of changes to 

energy supply and demand. DOE uses 

those other cases that incorporate 

efficiency-related policies to estimate 

the marginal impacts of reduced energy 

demand on the utility sector.57 The 

output of this analysis is a set of timedependent coefficients that capture the 

change in electricity generation, primary 

fuel consumption, installed capacity 

and power sector emissions due to a 

unit reduction in demand for a given 

end use. These coefficients are 

multiplied by the stream of electricity 

savings calculated in the NIA to provide 

estimates of selected utility impacts of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards. Chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD 

describes the utility impact analysis in 

further detail. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a proposed standard. 

Employment impacts 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 

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 end 

users on energy; (2) reduced spending 

on new energy supply by the utility 

industry; (3) increased consumer 

spending on new products to which the 

new standards apply; 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).58 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.59 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, based on the 

BLS data alone, DOE believes net 

national employment may increase due 

to shifts in economic activity resulting 

from amended standards for residential 

dehumidifiers. 

For the standard levels considered in 

today’s NOPR, DOE estimated indirect 

national employment impacts using an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies, Version 3.1.1 (ImSET).60

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 the 

187 sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use. 

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 

equilibrium forecasting model, and 

understands 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 over-estimate actual job impacts 

over the long run for this rule. Because 

ImSET predicts small job impacts 

resulting from this rule, regardless of 

these uncertainties, the actual job 

impacts are likely to be negligible in the 

overall economy. For more details on 

the employment impact analysis, see 

chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD. 

V. Analytical Results 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to potential energy conservation 

standards for residential dehumidifiers. 

It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE 

and the projected impacts of each of 

these levels if adopted as energy 

conservation standards for residential 

dehumidifiers. Additional details 

regarding DOE’s analyses are contained 

in the NOPR TSD supporting this 

notice. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of four TSLs for residential 

dehumidifiers. These TSLs were 

developed by combining specific ELs for 

each of the five product classes 

analyzed by DOE. DOE presents the 

results for the TSLs in this document, 

while the results for all ELs that DOE 

analyzed are in the NOPR TSD. Table 

V.1 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding efficiency levels for 

residential dehumidifiers. TSL 4 

represents the max-tech energy 

efficiency for all product classes. TSL 3 

consists of the ELs below the max-tech 

level. TSL 2 consists of the gap-fill ELs 

below TSL 3 and above the baseline and 

EL 1 for product classes 1 and 2, while 

product class 3 through product class 5 

repeat the same efficiency level as TSL 

3. TSL 1 consists of the first EL above 

the baseline. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31681 

TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIERS

TSL 

PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 

≤30.00 pints/day 30.01–45.00 pints/

day 

>45.00 pints/day ≤8.0 ft 3 >8.0 ft 3

EL AEU 

(kWh/yr) EL AEU 

(kWh/yr) 

EL AEU 

(kWh/yr) EL AEU (kWh/yr) EL AEU (kWh/yr) 

— ........................................ 0 720 0 1,030 0 905 0 951 0 1,137 

1 ......................................... 1 505 1 808 1 781 1 809 1 1,016 

2 ......................................... 2 463 2 693 2 670 1 809 2 784 

3 ......................................... 3 428 3 607 2 670 1 809 2 784 

4 ......................................... 4 355 4 540 3 513 2 671 3 617 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on residential dehumidifier consumers 

by looking at the effects potential 

amended standards would have on the 

LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the 

impacts of potential standards on 

consumer subgroups. These analyses are 

discussed below. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

In general, higher-efficiency products 

would affect consumers in two ways: (1) 

Purchase prices would increase, and (2) 

annual operating costs would decrease. 

Inputs used for calculating the LCC and 

PBP include total installed costs (i.e., 

product price plus installation costs), 

operating costs (i.e., annual energy 

savings, energy prices, energy price 

trends, repair costs, and maintenance 

costs), product lifetime, and discount 

rates. 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 ELs 

considered for each residential 

dehumidifier product class. In the first 

of each pair of tables, the simple 

payback period is measured relative to 

the baseline product. In the second 

table, the LCC savings are measured 

relative to the average LCC in the base 

case, which represents what consumers 

would purchase in the absence of 

amended standards (see section IV.F.8 

of this proposed rule). Because some 

consumers purchase products with 

higher ELs in the base case, the average 

savings are less than the difference 

between the average LCC of EL 0 and 

the average LCC at each TSL. 

TABLE V.2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR DEHUMIDIFIER PC1 

[≤30.00 pints/day] 

TSL EL 

Average costs 

(2013$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime (years) 

Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

— ................................................ 0 212 101 952 1,163 ........................ 11 

1 ................................................. 1 212 71 668 879 0.0 11 

2 ................................................. 2 214 65 612 826 0.1 11 

3 ................................................. 3 218 60 566 784 0.2 11 

4 ................................................. 4 241 50 469 710 0.6 11 

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 (EL 0) product. 

TABLE V.3—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR DEHUMIDIFIER PC1 

[≤30.00 pints/day] 

TSL EL 

Life-cycle cost savings 

% of Consumers 

that experience Average savings * 

Net cost 2013$ 

1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 0 31 

2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 0 49 

3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 0 64 

4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 10.3 137 

* The calculation includes households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31682 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR DEHUMIDIFIER PC2 

[30.01–45.00 pints/day] 

TSL EL 

Average costs 

(2013$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

— ................................................ 256 145 1,361 1,617 ........................ 11 ........................

1 ................................................. 1 256 114 1,067 1,323 0.0 11 

2 ................................................. 2 259 97 915 1,175 0.1 11 

3 ................................................. 3 268 85 802 1,069 0.2 11 

4 ................................................. 4 290 76 713 1,003 0.5 11 

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 BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR DEHUMIDIFIER PC2 

[30.01–45.00 pints/day] 

TSL EL 

Life-cycle cost savings 

% of consumers 

that experience Average savings * 

Net cost 2013$ 

1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 0 0 

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

3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 0.5 99 

4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 5.4 164 

* The calculation includes households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

TABLE V.6—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR DEHUMIDIFIER PC3 

[>45.00 pints/day] 

TSL EL 

Average costs 

(2013$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

— ................................................ 0 915 127 1,195 2,110 ........................ 11 

1 ................................................. 1 989 110 1,032 2,021 4.3 11 

2, 3 ............................................. 2 1,008 94 885 1,893 2.8 11 

4 ................................................. 3 1,124 72 678 1,802 3.8 11 

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 BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR DEHUMIDIFIER PC3 

[>45.00 pints/day] 

TSL EL 

Life-cycle cost savings 

% of consumers 

that experience Average savings * 

Net cost 2013$ 

1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 18.9 50 

2, 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 2 11.7 147 

4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 31.4 239 

* The calculation includes households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31683 

61 DOE did not analyze subgroup impacts for 

compact dehumidifiers because the saturation of 

these products is extremely small. 

TABLE V.8—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR DEHUMIDIFIER PC4 

[≤8.0 ft3] 

TSL EL 

Average costs 

(2013$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

— ................................................ 0 1,662 139 2,048 3,710 ........................ 19 

1, 2, 3 ......................................... 1 1,689 118 1,740 3,429 1.3 19 

4 ................................................. 2 1,890 98 1,444 3,334 5.5 19 

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 BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR DEHUMIDIFIER PC4 

[≤8.0 ft3] 

TSL EL 

Life-cycle cost savings 

% of consumers 

that experience Average savings * 

Net cost 2013$ 

1, 2, 3 ............................................................................................................................................. 1 8.4 207 

4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 44.4 302 

* The calculation includes households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

TABLE V.10—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR DEHUMIDIFIER PC5 

[>8.0 ft3] 

TSL EL 

Average costs 

(2013$) Simple PBP 

(years) 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) Installed cost First year’s 

operating cost 

Lifetime 

operating cost LCC 

— ...................... 0 2,142 166 2,446 4,589 ........................ 19 

1 ....................... 1 2,154 149 2,188 4,342 0.7 19 

2, 3 ................... 2 2,212 115 1,687 3,899 1.4 19 

4 ....................... 3 2,445 90 1,328 3,773 4.0 19 

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 BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR DEHUMIDIFIER PC5 

[>8.0 ft3] 

TSL EL 

Life-cycle cost savings 

% of consumers 

that experience Average savings * 

Net cost 2013$ 

1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 75 

2, 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 2 10.7 416 

4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 39.9 542 

* The calculation includes households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

As described in section IV.I of this 

proposed rule, DOE estimated the 

impact of the considered TSLs on lowincome households and senior-only 

households.61 Table V.12 through Table 

V.16 compare the average LCC savings 

at each efficiency level for the two 

consumer subgroups, along with the 

average LCC savings for the entire 

sample. In most cases, the average LCC 

savings and PBP for low-income 

households and senior-only households 

at the considered ELs are not 

substantially different from the average 

for all households. Chapter 11 of the 

NOPR TSD presents the complete LCC 

and PBP results for the two subgroups. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31684 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.12—DEHUMIDIFIER PC1 (≤30.00 PINTS/DAY): COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER

SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2013$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households Low-income households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

1 ................................................... 28 24 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 

2 ................................................... 45 39 49 0.1 0.1 0.1 

3 ................................................... 58 51 64 0.2 0.2 0.2 

4 ................................................... 125 107 137 0.6 0.7 0.6 

TABLE V.13—DEHUMIDIFIER PC2 (30.01–45.00 PINTS/DAY): COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER

SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2013$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households Low-income households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

1 ................................................... 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

2 ................................................... 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

3 ................................................... 92 81 99 0.2 0.2 0.2 

4 ................................................... 150 130 164 0.5 0.6 0.5 

TABLE V.14—DEHUMIDIFIER PC3 (>45.00 PINTS/DAY): COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER

SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2013$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households Low-income households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

1 ................................................... 43 36 50 4.5 5.2 4.3 

2, 3 ............................................... 133 114 147 3.0 3.4 2.8 

4 ................................................... 209 169 239 4.0 4.6 3.8 

TABLE V.15—DEHUMIDIFIER PC4 (✖8.0 FT3): COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS

AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2013$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households Low-income households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

1, 2, 3 ........................................... 113 182 207 1.9 1.4 1.3 

4 ................................................... 89 248 302 8.3 6.0 5.5 

TABLE V.16—DEHUMIDIFIER PC5 (>8.0 FT3): COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND

ALL HOUSEHOLDS

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2013$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households Low-income households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

1 ................................................... 43 67 75 1.0 0.7 0.7 

2, 3 ............................................... 224 367 416 2.0 1.5 1.4 

4 ................................................... 204 457 542 6.0 4.4 4.0 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed above, EPCA provides 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 PBP for the considered 

standard levels, DOE used discrete 

values and, as required by EPCA, based 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31685 

62The PBPs in Table V.17 differ from those 

shown in Tables V.2, V.4, V.6, V.8 and V.10 because 

the rebuttable PBPs are calculated with energy use 

based on the DOE test procedure, whereas the PBPs 

in the earlier tables are calculated with energy use 

based on field studies and RECS data. 

the energy use calculation on the 

current DOE test procedure for 

residential dehumidifiers. In contrast, 

the PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a 

were calculated using distributions for 

input values, with energy use based on 

field studies and RECS data. 

Table V.17 presents the rebuttablepresumption PBPs for the considered 

TSLs.62 While DOE examined the 

rebuttable-presumption criterion, it 

further 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). The results of 

that analysis serve as the basis for DOE 

to evaluate the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). 

TABLE V.17—RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIERS: REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD

[Years] 

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

PC1 ..........................................................................................................

(≤30.00 pints/day) .................................................................................... 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.8 

PC2 ..........................................................................................................

(30.00—45.00 pints/day) ......................................................................... 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 

PC3 ..........................................................................................................

(>45.00 pints/day) .................................................................................... 5.6 3.7 3.7 5.0 

PC4 ..........................................................................................................

(≤8.0 ft3) ................................................................................................... 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.6 

PC5 ..........................................................................................................

(>8.0 ft3) ................................................................................................... 1.0 2.1 2.1 6.2 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifiers. The section below 

describes the expected impacts on 

manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 12 

of the NOPR TSD explains the analysis 

in further detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

The following tables illustrate the 

financial impacts (represented by 

changes in INPV) of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifiers as well as the conversion 

costs that DOE estimates manufacturers 

would incur for all product classes at 

each TSL. To evaluate the range of cashflow impacts on the residential 

dehumidifier manufacturing industry, 

DOE used two different markup 

scenarios to model the range of 

anticipated market responses to 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

To assess the lower (less severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts, DOE 

modeled a preservation of gross margin 

percentage markup scenario, in which a 

flat markup of 1.45 (i.e., the baseline 

manufacturer markup) is applied across 

all efficiency levels. In this scenario, 

DOE assumed that a manufacturer’s 

absolute dollar markup would increase 

as production costs increase in the 

amended energy conservation standards 

case. Manufacturers have indicated that 

it is optimistic to assume that they 

would be able to maintain the same 

gross margin markup as their 

production costs increase in response to 

a new or amended energy conservation 

standard, particularly at higher TSLs. 

To assess the higher (more severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts, DOE 

modeled the preservation of per-unit 

operating profit markup scenario, which 

assumes that manufacturers would not 

be able to preserve the same overall 

gross margin, but instead would cut 

their markup for minimally compliant 

products to maintain a cost competitive 

product offering while maintaining the 

same overall level of operating profit in 

absolute dollars as in the base case. The 

two tables below show the range of 

potential INPV impacts for 

manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifiers. Table V.18 reflects the 

lower bound of impacts (higher 

profitability) and Table V.19 represents 

the upper bound of impacts (lower 

profitability). 

Each scenario results in a unique set 

of cash flows and corresponding 

industry values at each TSL. In the 

following discussion, the INPV results 

refer to the sum of discounted cash 

flows through 2048, the difference in 

INPV between the base case and each 

standards case, and the total industry 

conversion costs required for each 

standards case. 

TABLE V.18—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP

SCENARIO FOR ANALYSIS PERIOD

[2015–2048] 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

INPV ................................. 2013$ Millions ....... 186.5 184 .0 183 .4 155 .2 146 .3 

Change in INPV ............... 2013$ Millions ....... ........................ (2 .5) (3 .1) (31 .3) (40 .2) 

(%) ........................ ........................ (1 .4%) (1 .6%) (16 .8%) (21 .6%) 

Free Cash Flow (2018) .... 2013$ Millions ....... 15.8 14 .1 13 .6 (2 .5) (13 .7) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31686 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.18—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP

SCENARIO FOR ANALYSIS PERIOD—Continued 

[2015–2048] 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

Change in Free Cash 

Flow (2018).

(%) ........................ ........................ (11 .2%) (14 .4%) (116 .1%) (186 .4%) 

Product Conversion Costs 2013$ Millions ....... ........................ 3 .9 5 .1 30 .2 48 .1 

Capital Conversion Costs 2013$ Millions ....... ........................ 1 .3 1 .7 20 .5 33 .1 

Total Conversion 

Costs.

2013$ Millions ....... ........................ 5 .2 6 .7 50 .7 81 .3 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

TABLE V.19—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF PER-UNIT OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP

SCENARIO FOR ANALYSIS PERIOD

[2015—2048] 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

INPV ................................. 2013$ Millions ....... 186.5 183 .5 182 .1 151 .6 126 .8 

Change in INPV ............... 2013$ Millions ....... ........................ (3 .0) (4 .4) (34 .9) (59 .7) 

(%) ........................ ........................ (1 .6%) (2 .4%) (18 .7%) (32 .0%) 

Free Cash Flow (2018) .... 2013$ Millions ....... 15.8 14 .1 13 .6 (2 .5) (13 .7) 

Decrease in Free Cash 

Flow (2018).

(%) ........................ ........................ (11 .2%) (14 .4%) (116 .1%) (186 .4%) 

Product Conversion Costs 2013$ Millions ....... ........................ 3 .9 5 .1 30 .2 48 .1 

Capital Conversion Costs 2013$ Millions ....... ........................ 1 .3 1 .7 20 .5 33 .1 

Total Conversion 

Costs.

2013$ Millions ....... ........................ 5 .2 6 .7 50 .7 81 .3 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

Beyond impacts on INPV, DOE 

includes a comparison of free cash flow 

between the base case and the standards 

case at each TSL in the year before 

amended standards take effect to 

provide perspective on the short-run 

cash flow impacts in the discussion of 

the results below. 

At TSL 1, DOE estimates the impact 

on INPV for manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifiers to range from -$2.5 

million to -$3.0 million, or a decrease in 

INPV of 1.4 percent to 1.6 percent under 

the preservation of gross margin 

percentage markup scenario and the 

preservation of per-unit operating profit 

markup scenario, respectively. At this 

TSL, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

11.2 percent to $14.1 million, compared 

to the base-case value of $15.8 million 

in 2018, the year before the projected 

compliance date. 

At TSL 1, the industry as a whole is 

expected to incur $3.9 million in 

product conversion costs attributed to 

upfront research, development, testing, 

and certification; as well as $1.3 million 

in one-time investments in property, 

plant and equipment (PP&E) necessary 

to manufacture redesigned platforms. 

The majority of industry conversion cost 

burden at TSL 1 would be felt by 

manufacturers of high-capacity portable 

and whole-home dehumidifiers, as more 

of these products are currently at the 

baseline than is the case for lowercapacity portable products. These 

baseline products may necessitate 

complete platform redesigns, which 

involve moving to a new case size to 

accommodate larger heat exchangers. 

These changes require upfront capital 

investments for new tooling to 

manufacturing production lines, among 

other changes. Additionally, it is 

assumed that manufacturers of highcapacity portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers, the majority of which are 

small business manufacturers, will have 

to outsource testing of their products to 

third-party testing facilities, 

contributing to greater product 

conversion costs. In contrast, the large 

manufacturers of small portable 

dehumidifiers are assumed to have inhouse testing capabilities which 

significantly reduce the cost of testing. 

DOE confirmed these assumptions 

regarding testing burdens during 

manufacturer interviews. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimates the impact 

on INPV for manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifiers to range from ¥$3.1 

million to ¥$4.4 million, or a decrease 

in INPV of 1.6 percent to 2.4 percent 

under the preservation of gross margin 

percentage markup scenario and the 

preservation of per-unit operating profit 

markup scenario, respectively. At this 

TSL, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

14.4 percent to $13.6 million, compared 

to the base-case value of $15.8 million 

in 2018, the year before the projected 

compliance date. 

At TSL 2, the industry as a whole is 

expected to incur $5.1 million in 

product conversion costs associated 

with the upfront research, development, 

testing, and certification; as well as $1.7 

million in one-time investments in 

PP&E to manufacturer products 

requiring platform redesigns. Similar to 

TSL 1, the majority of industry 

conversion cost burden at TSL 2 will be 

felt by manufacturers of high-capacity 

portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers, as more products of 

these types are at the baseline than is 

the case for lower-capacity portable 

products, and will require complete 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31687 

63The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 Annual Survey 

of Manufactures provides the following definition: 

‘‘The ‘production workers’ number includes 

workers (up through the line-supervisor level) 

engaged in fabricating, processing, assembling, 

inspecting, receiving, storing, handling, packing, 

warehousing, shipping (but not delivering), 

maintenance, repair, janitorial and guard services, 

product development, auxiliary production for 

plant’s own use (e.g., power plant), recordkeeping, 

and other services closely associated with these 

production operations at the establishment covered 

by the report. Employees above the workingsupervisor level are excluded from this item.’’ 

platform redesigns. Platform redesigns 

at TSL 2 will require moving to a new 

case size to accommodate larger heat 

exchangers, and will necessitate upfront 

capital investments for new tooling. 

Similar to TSL 1, because manufacturers 

of high-capacity portable and wholehome dehumidifiers are largely small 

businesses, it is assumed that these 

manufacturers will be required to 

outsource testing of their products to 

third-party testing facilities. In contrast, 

the large manufacturers of small 

portable dehumidifiers are assumed to 

have in-house testing capabilities, 

which significantly reduce the cost of 

testing. DOE confirmed these 

assumptions regarding testing burdens 

during manufacturer interviews. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimates the impact 

on INPV for manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifiers to range from ¥$31.3 

million to ¥$34.9 million, or a decrease 

in INPV of 16.8 percent to 18.7 percent 

under the preservation of gross margin 

percentage markup scenario and the 

preservation of per-unit operating profit 

markup scenario, respectively. At this 

TSL, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

116.1 percent to ¥$2.5 million, 

compared to the base-case value of 

$15.8 million in 2018, the year before 

the projected compliance date. 

At TSL 3, the industry as a whole is 

expected to spend $30.2 million in 

product conversion costs associated 

with the research and development and 

testing and certification, as well as $20.5 

million in one-time investments in 

PP&E to manufacture redesigned 

platforms. While conversion costs 

remain relatively constant for 

manufacturers of high-capacity portable 

and whole-home dehumidifiers between 

TSLs 1, 2 and 3, the conversion costs for 

manufacturers of lower-capacity 

portable products increase substantially 

at TSL 3, as a greater portion of these 

products will require total platform 

redesigns. As with the high-capacity 

portable and whole-home dehumidifier 

market segment, platform redesigns for 

lower-capacity portable units will 

consist of moving products to a new 

case size to accommodate larger heat 

exchangers, and in turn will require 

capital investments in new tooling for 

larger cases. This upfront investment is 

in addition to higher R&D and testing 

expenditures. Because lower-capacity 

portable units represent approximately 

97 percent of the market, conversion 

costs associated with this segment have 

a significant impact on total industry 

conversion costs for TSL 3. 

At TSL 4, DOE estimates the impact 

on INPV for manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifiers to range from ¥$40.2 

million to ¥$59.7 million, or a decrease 

in INPV of 21.6 percent to 32.0 percent 

under the preservation of gross margin 

percentage markup scenario and the 

preservation of per-unit operating profit 

markup scenario, respectively. At this 

TSL, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

186.4 percent to -$13.7 million, 

compared to the base-case value of 

$15.8 million in 2018, the year before 

the projected compliance date. 

At TSL 4, the industry as a whole is 

expected to spend $48.1 million in 

product conversion costs associated 

with the research and development and 

testing and certification, as well as $33.1 

million in one-time investments in 

PP&E for platform redesigns. Again, 

conversion costs remain relatively 

constant for manufacturers of highcapacity portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers across TSLs 1, 2, 3, and 

4. In contrast, the conversion cost 

burden for manufacturers of lowercapacity portable products increases 

substantially at TSL 4, as an 

increasingly larger portion of smaller 

portable products will require platform 

redesigns. Again, since lower-capacity 

portable units represent approximately 

97 percent of the market, conversion 

costs associated with this segment have 

a significant impact on total industry 

conversion costs for TSL 4. 

b. Impacts on Employment 

DOE used the GRIM to estimate the 

domestic labor expenditures and 

number of domestic production workers 

in the base case and at each TSL from 

2015 to 2048. DOE used statistical data 

from the U.S Census Bureau’s 2011 

Annual Survey of Manufactures, the 

results of the engineering analysis, and 

interviews with manufacturers to 

determine the inputs necessary to 

calculate industry-wide labor 

expenditures and domestic employment 

levels at each TSL. Labor expenditures 

for the manufacture of a product are a 

function of the labor intensity of the 

product, the sales volume, and an 

assumption that wages in real terms 

remain constant. 

DOE notes that the MIA assessment of 

impacts on manufacturing employment 

focuses specifically on the production 

workers manufacturing the covered 

products in question, rather than a 

manufacturer’s broader operations. 

Thus, the estimated number of impacted 

employees in the MIA is separate and 

distinct from the total number of 

employees used to determine whether a 

manufacturer is a small business for 

purposes of analysis under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The estimates of production workers 

in this section only cover those up to 

and including the line-supervisor level 

that are directly involved in fabricating 

and assembling a product within the 

OEM facility. In addition, workers that 

perform services that are closely 

associated with production operations 

are included. Employees above the 

working-supervisor level are excluded 

from the count of production workers. 

Thus, the labor associated with nonproduction functions (e.g., factory 

supervision, advertisement, sales) is 

explicitly not covered.63 In addition, 

DOE’s estimates only account for 

production workers that manufacture 

the specific products covered by this 

rulemaking. Finally, because DOE does 

not expect that this standard will impact 

shipments for any product class, this 

analysis also does not factor in the 

dependence by some manufacturers on 

production volume to make their 

operations viable. Alternative 

employment impact scenarios specific 

to the small business manufacturer 

subgroup are considered at the end of 

this section. 

In the GRIM, DOE used the labor 

content of each product and the 

manufacturing production costs from 

the engineering analysis to estimate the 

annual labor expenditures in the 

residential dehumidifier manufacturing 

industry. DOE used information gained 

through interviews with manufacturers 

to estimate the portion of the total labor 

expenditures that can be attributed to 

domestic production labor. 

The employment impacts shown in 

Table V.20 represent the potential 

production employment that could 

result following amended energy 

conservation standards. These are 

independent of the employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, which 

are documented in chapter 16 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

DOE estimates that in the absence of 

amended energy conservation 

standards, there would be 214 domestic 

production workers for all 

manufacturers involved in 

manufacturing residential dehumidifiers 

in 2019. Using the 2011 Annual Survey 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31688 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

of Manufactures and interviews with 

manufacturers, DOE estimates that 

approximately 3 percent of residential 

dehumidifiers sold in the United States 

are manufactured domestically. Table 

V.20 shows the range of the impacts of 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards on U.S. production workers in 

the residential dehumidifier 

manufacturing industry. 

TABLE V.20—CHANGE IN TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES IN 2019 IN THE RESIDENTIAL

DEHUMIDIFIER INDUSTRY

Base case TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2019 ......................... 214 219 222 222 261 

Change in Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2019 (%) .................... 2.3% 3.7% 3.7% 21.9% 

Because production employment 

expenditures are assumed to be a fixed 

percentage of cost of goods sold and the 

MPCs typically increase with more 

efficient products, labor tracks the 

increased prices in the GRIM. As 

efficiency of dehumidifiers increases, so 

does the complexity of the products, 

generally requiring more labor to 

produce the product. However, because 

only 3 percent of residential 

dehumidifier manufacturing takes place 

domestically, employment impacts are 

expected to be minimal. DOE expects 

that there would be minimal 

employment impacts among domestic 

residential dehumidifier manufacturers 

for TSLs 1, 2, and 3. For TSL 4, the 

GRIM predicts a 21.9 percent increase in 

total domestic production employment 

following amended standards based on 

the increase in complexity and relative 

price of the high-capacity portable and 

whole-home dehumidifier segment. 

During manufacturer interviews, some 

small businesses stated that, contrary to 

the above findings, domestic production 

and non-production employment in the 

industry may decrease as a result of 

amended standards for residential 

dehumidifiers, due to reduced 

shipments volumes and/or reduced 

margins. 

Similarly, the above analysis does not 

account for the possible relocation of 

domestic jobs to lower-labor-cost 

countries because the potential 

relocation of U.S. jobs is uncertain and 

highly speculative. As mentioned above, 

the vast majority of residential 

dehumidifiers sold in the United States 

are manufactured abroad. However, 

almost all of the high-capacity portable 

and whole-home dehumidifiers are 

manufactured domestically. Feedback 

from manufacturers during NOPR 

interviews reveals that some domestic 

small businesses in the residential 

dehumidifier industry may be forced to 

make employment cuts or to shift 

production to new locations, including 

locations outside of the United States, as 

a result of amended energy conservation 

standards. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

As noted previously, the majority of 

residential dehumidifiers sold in the 

United States are not produced 

domestically. However, feedback from 

domestic manufacturers of highcapacity portable products and wholehome dehumidifiers suggested that 

production of these products could shift 

abroad as a result of amended energy 

conservation standards. This could lead 

to a permanently lower production 

capacity within the residential 

dehumidifier industry. 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop an industry cash flow estimate 

is not adequate for assessing differential 

impacts among subgroups of 

manufacturers. Small manufacturers, 

niche players, or manufacturers 

exhibiting a cost structure that differs 

significantly from the industry average 

could be affected differently. DOE used 

the results of the industry 

characterization to group manufacturers 

exhibiting similar characteristics. 

As previously mentioned, DOE 

identified five domestic small business 

manufacturers that may be 

disproportionately affected by the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for residential dehumidifiers. These 

manufacturers are focused on one 

specific market segment (high-capacity 

portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers) and, in terms of annual 

revenue, are at least one order of 

magnitude smaller than their diversified 

competitors (tens of millions compared 

to hundreds of millions). Due to this 

combination of market concentration 

and size, these small businesses are at 

risk of high, disproportionate impacts, 

depending on the TSL chosen. 

DOE received feedback from small 

business manufacturers and OEM 

contractors through public comments 

and confidential interviews (see 

sections IV.J.3 and IV.J.4 of this 

proposed rule for a discussion of public 

comments and feedback received from 

dehumidifier manufacturers during the 

NOPR phase). These manufacturers 

expressed a high degree of concern 

relating to the magnitude of burdens 

and the disproportionate impacts that 

they believe will result from amended 

energy conservation standards for 

residential dehumidifiers. 

Today’s standards for residential 

dehumidifiers could cause small 

manufacturers to be at a disadvantage 

relative to large manufacturers. One way 

in which small manufacturers could be 

at a disadvantage is that they may be 

disproportionately affected by product 

and capital conversion costs. Product 

redesign, testing, and certification costs 

tend to be fixed per basic model and do 

not scale with sales volume. For each 

model, small businesses must make 

investments in research and 

development to redesign their products, 

but because they have lower sales 

volumes, they must spread these costs 

across fewer units. In addition, because 

small manufacturers have fewer 

engineers than large manufacturers, they 

need to allocate a greater portion of their 

available resources to meet a standard. 

Because engineers may need to spend 

more time redesigning and testing 

existing models as a result of the new 

standard, they may have less time to 

develop new products. Similarly, 

upfront capital investments in new 

manufacturing capital for platform 

redesigns, as well as depreciated 

manufacturing capital, can only be 

spread across a lower volume of 

shipments. 

Furthermore, smaller manufacturers 

may lack the purchasing power of larger 

manufacturers. For example, since fan 

motor suppliers give discounts to 

manufacturers based on the number of 

motors they purchase, larger 

manufacturers may have a pricing 

advantage because they have higher 

volume purchases. This purchasing 

power differential between small and 

large manufacturers applies to other 

residential dehumidifier components as 

well, including compressors and heat 

exchangers. Some larger manufacturers 

of lower-capacity portable 

dehumidifiers may even manufacture 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31689 

64U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

‘‘Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis’’ (Sept. 17, 

2003) (Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

omb/circulars_a004_a-4/). 

65Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1), and no later than 

6 years after DOE issues a final rule establishing or 

amending an energy conservation standard, DOE 

must publish a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to be 

amended or a NOPR that includes new proposed 

standards. The 9-year analytical period includes 

this 6-year period and an additional 3 years to issue 

the final rule and allow time for industry 

compliance. 

heat exchangers in-house. Additionally, 

because small business manufacturers 

produce larger units, they require larger/ 

custom components (e.g. larger 

compressors) compared to large 

manufacturers who produce lowercapacity portable products and who 

account for the majority of the 

dehumidifier market. Because of the 

low-volume nature of the high-capacity 

portable and whole-home dehumidifier 

market, certain technological 

improvements to components may only 

be developed for small portable 

products, or with significant lag time for 

large dehumidifier products. 

To access the capital required to cover 

the conversion costs associated with 

reaching the proposed standards, small 

business manufacturers would likely be 

forced to take on additional debt, 

whereas larger manufacturers of small 

portable products would be better 

equipped to fund purchases with 

existing cash flow from operations. 

In terms of impacts to small business 

manufacturers associated with the 

specific TSLs outlined in this notice, as 

discussed in section V.B.2.d, 

disproportionate impacts will be 

greatest at TSLs 1 and 2, where 

relatively more high-capacity portable 

and home-whole dehumidifiers are at or 

below the baseline than is the case for 

the lower-capacity portable products. 

Additionally, it is assumed that small 

business manufacturers will be required 

to outsource the testing of their products 

to third-party testing facilities. In 

contrast, the large manufacturers of 

small portable dehumidifiers are 

assumed to have in-house testing 

capabilities, which significantly reduce 

the cost of testing. While the magnitude 

of the conversion cost burden increases 

slightly for small business 

manufacturers at TSLs 3 and 4, 

disproportionate impacts decrease 

substantially, as relatively more lowercapacity portable product platforms will 

require substantial redesign. Between 

TSLs 3 and 4, TSL 3 minimizes 

standards compliance burdens for small 

business manufacturers relative to the 

burdens of high-volume portable 

dehumidifier manufacturers. 

Further detail and separate analysis of 

impacts on small business high-capacity 

portable and whole-home dehumidifier 

manufacturers are found in chapter 12, 

section 12.6 of the NOPR TSD, as well 

as in sections IV.J.3, IV.J.4, and V.B.2.d 

of this notice. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden is the cumulative impact of 

multiple DOE standards and the 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies and States that affect the 

manufacturers of a covered product or 

equipment. While any one regulation 

may not impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

several existing or impending 

regulations may have serious 

consequences for some manufacturers, 

groups of manufacturers, or an entire 

industry. 

Companies that produce a wider 

range of regulated products may be 

faced with more capital and product 

development expenditures than their 

competitors. This can prompt those 

companies to exit the market or reduce 

their product offerings, potentially 

reducing competition. Smaller 

companies can be especially affected, 

since they have lower sales volumes 

over which to amortize the costs of 

compliance with new regulations. 

In addition to DOE’s energy 

conservation regulations for residential 

dehumidifiers, several other existing 

and pending regulations apply to these 

products and other equipment produced 

by the same manufacturers. The most 

significant of these additional 

regulations include several additional 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and third-party certification programs 

(e.g., UL safety standards certification 

for dehumidifiers). For more details, see 

chapter 12, section 12.7.3 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential standards for 

residential dehumidifiers, DOE 

compared the energy consumption of 

those products under the base case to 

their anticipated energy consumption 

under each TSL. Table V.21 presents 

DOE’s projections of the national energy 

savings for each TSL considered for 

residential dehumidifiers shipped in the 

2019–2048 period. The savings were 

calculated using the approach described 

in section IV.H.1 of this notice. 

TABLE V.21—RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIERS: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS

[Shipments in 2019–2048] 

Savings 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

Primary Energy 

Savings 

(quads) .......... 0.07 0.11 0.31 0.75 

FFC Energy 

Savings 

(quads) .......... 0.07 0.11 0.32 0.79 

OMB Circular A–4 64 requires 

agencies to present analytical results, 

including separate schedules of the 

monetized benefits and costs that show 

the type and timing of benefits and 

costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies 

to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of 

benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 

DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis 

using 9, rather than 30, years of product 

shipments. The choice of a 9-year 

period is a proxy for the timeline in 

EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of, and compliance with, such 

revised standards.65 The review 

timeframe established in EPCA is 

generally not synchronized with the 

product lifetime, product manufacturing 

cycles, or other factors specific to 

residential 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 residential dehumidifiers 

purchased in 2019–2027. 

TABLE V.22—RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIERS: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR PRODUCTS

SHIPPED IN 2019–2027 

Savings 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

Primary Energy 

Savings 

(quads) .......... 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.23 

FFC Energy 

Savings 

(quads) .......... 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.24 

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 

standard levels considered for 

residential dehumidifiers. In accordance 

with the OMB’s guidelines on regulatory 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31690 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

66U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

‘‘Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis,’’ Section E, 

(September 17, 2003) (Available at: http://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/). 

analysis,66 DOE calculated NPV using 

both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real 

discount rate. 

Table V.23 shows the consumer NPV 

results for each TSL DOE considered for 

residential dehumidifiers. The impacts 

are counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2019–2048. 

TABLE V.23—RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIERS: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT

VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR

PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 

Discount rate 

Billion 2013$ 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

.

3 percent ........... 0.50 0.78 2.27 4.96 

7 percent ........... 0.24 0.37 1.04 2.13 

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 2019–2027. 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—RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIERS: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT

VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR

PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2027 

Discount rate 

Billion 2013$ 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

3 percent ........... 0.24 0.36 0.93 1.78 

7 percent ........... 0.14 0.22 0.56 1.03 

The above results reflect the use of a 

default trend to estimate the change in 

price for residential dehumidifiers over 

the analysis period (see section IV.F.1 of 

this notice). 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 price 

decline case, the NPV of consumer 

benefits is lower than in the default 

case. 

c. Impacts on Employment 

As discussed above, DOE expects 

energy conservation standards for 

residential dehumidifiers to reduce 

energy bills for consumers of those 

products, and the resulting net savings 

to be 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 notice, 

DOE used an input/output model of the 

U.S. economy to estimate indirect 

employment impacts of the TSLs that 

DOE considered in this rulemaking. 

DOE understands that there are 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Therefore, DOE generated 

results for near-term timeframe, where 

these uncertainties are reduced. 

The results suggest that today’s 

standards are likely to have 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. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

Based on testing conducted in support 

of this proposed rule, discussed in 

section IV.C.1.b of this notice, DOE has 

concluded that the TSL proposed in this 

NOPR would not reduce the utility or 

performance of the residential 

dehumidifiers under consideration in 

this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these 

products currently offer units that meet 

or exceed today’s standards. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

As discussed in section III.E.e, the 

Attorney General determines the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard, and transmits such 

determination to DOE, together with an 

analysis of the nature and extent of such 

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

and (B)(ii)) 

DOE will transmit a copy of this 

NOPR and the accompanying NOPR 

TSD to the Attorney General, requesting 

that the DOJ provide its determination 

on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ’s 

comments on the proposed rule in 

determining whether to proceed with 

the proposed energy conservation 

standards. DOE will also publish and 

respond to DOJ’s comments in the 

Federal Register in a separate notice. 

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 or 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. As a measure of this 

reduced demand, chapter 15, section 

15.3 in the NOPR TSD presents the 

estimated reduction in generating 

capacity for the TSLs that DOE 

considered in this rulemaking. 

Energy savings from amended 

standards for residential dehumidifiers 

could also produce environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with 

electricity production. Table V.25 

provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative 

emissions reductions to result from the 

TSLs considered in this rulemaking. 

DOE reports annual CO2, NOX, and Hg 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

chapter 13, section 13.5 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

TABLE V.25—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

Power sector emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ................................................................................................. 4.05 6.40 18.29 44.55 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31691 

TABLE V.25—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048—Continued 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................ 3.52 5.55 15.77 38.16 

NOX (thousand tons) ....................................................................................................... 3.18 5.03 14.34 34.83 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................................... 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................ 0.05 0.09 0.25 0.61 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................ 0.38 0.61 1.75 4.28 

Upstream emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ................................................................................................. 0.22 0.35 1.01 2.50 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................ 0.04 0.06 0.18 0.44 

NOX (thousand tons) ....................................................................................................... 3.14 5.00 14.44 35.57 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................ 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................ 18.32 29.15 84.13 207.16 

Total FFC emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ................................................................................................. 4.27 6.75 19.31 47.05 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................ 3.56 5.61 15.95 38.60 

NOX (thousand tons) ....................................................................................................... 6.33 10.03 28.79 70.40 

Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................................... 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.12 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................ 0.06 0.09 0.26 0.63 

N2O (thousand tons CO2eq) * .......................................................................................... 15.02 23.84 68.57 168.12 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................ 18.70 29.75 85.88 211.44 

CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq) * .......................................................................................... 523.57 833.12 2,404.57 5,920.22 

* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP. 

As part of the analysis for this 

proposed rule, DOE estimated monetary 

benefits likely to result from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that 

DOE estimated for each of the TSLs 

considered for residential 

dehumidifiers. As discussed in section 

IV.L of this notice, for CO2, DOE used 

the most recent values for the SCC 

developed by an interagency process. 

The four sets of SCC values for CO2

emissions reductions in 2015 resulting 

from that process (expressed in 2013$) 

are represented by $12.0/metric ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 5-percent discount rate), $40.5/

metric ton (the average value from a 

distribution that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate), $62.4/metric ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and 

$119/metric ton (the 95th-percentile 

value from a distribution that uses a 3- 

percent discount rate). The values for 

later years are higher due to increasing 

damages (emissions-related costs) as the 

projected magnitude of climate change 

increases. 

Table V.26 presents the global value 

of CO2 emissions reductions at each 

TSL. For each of the four cases, DOE 

calculated a present value of the stream 

of annual values using the same 

discount rate as was used in the studies 

upon which the dollar-per-ton values 

are based. DOE calculated domestic 

values as a range from 7 percent to 23 

percent of the global values, and these 

results are presented in chapter 14 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.26—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIER

TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Million 2013$ 

SCC Case * 

5% Discount rate, 

average 

3% Discount rate, 

average 

2.5% Discount rate, 

average 

3% Discount rate, 

95th percentile 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ............................................................................... 29.5 132.8 210.0 409.9 

2 ............................................................................... 46.2 208.7 330.3 644.4 

3 ............................................................................... 130.3 592.6 938.9 1,831.0 

4 ............................................................................... 310.8 1,426.6 2,264.4 4,411.2 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ............................................................................... 1.6 7.2 11.3 22.1 

2 ............................................................................... 2.5 11.3 18.0 35.0 

3 ............................................................................... 7.1 32.4 51.5 100.4 

4 ............................................................................... 17.0 78.9 125.6 244.4 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31692 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.26—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIER

TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS—Continued 

TSL 

Million 2013$ 

SCC Case * 

5% Discount rate, 

average 

3% Discount rate, 

average 

2.5% Discount rate, 

average 

3% Discount rate, 

95th percentile 

Total FFC Emissions 

1 ............................................................................... 31.1 140.0 221.4 432.0 

2 ............................................................................... 48.6 220.1 348.3 679.4 

3 ............................................................................... 137.3 625.0 990.5 1,931.3 

4 ............................................................................... 327.8 1,505.6 2,390.0 4,655.6 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton (2013$). 

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 world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value used to represent the reduction of 

CO2 emissions in this rulemaking is 

subject to change. DOE, together with 

other Federal agencies, will continue to 

review various 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. 

However, consistent with DOE’s legal 

obligations, and taking into account the 

uncertainty involved with this 

particular issue, DOE has included in 

this proposed rule the most recent 

values and analyses resulting from the 

interagency process. 

DOE also estimated the cumulative 

monetary value of the economic benefits 

associated with NOX emissions 

reductions anticipated to result from 

amended standards for residential 

dehumidifiers. The dollar-per-ton 

values that DOE used are discussed in 

section IV.L of this notice. Table V.27 

presents the cumulative present values 

for each TSL calculated using 7-percent 

and 3-percent discount rates. 

TABLE V.27—ESTIMATES OF PRESENT

VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIERS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Million 2013$ 

3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ................................ 11.9 5.4 

2 ................................ 18.6 8.3 

3 ................................ 52.4 22.8 

4 ................................ 125.0 52.9 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ................................ 11.4 4.9 

2 ................................ 18.0 7.6 

3 ................................ 51.4 21.2 

4 ................................ 124.5 49.9 

Total FFC Emissions 

1 ................................ 23.3 10.2 

2 ................................ 36.5 15.9 

3 ................................ 103.7 44.0 

TABLE V.27—ESTIMATES OF PRESENT

VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIERS TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS— 

Continued 

TSL 

Million 2013$ 

3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

4 ................................ 249.5 102.7 

7. Summary of National Economic 

Impacts 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the customer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. Table V.28 presents the 

NPV values that result from adding the 

estimates of the potential economic 

benefits resulting from reduced CO2 and 

NOX emissions in each of four valuation 

scenarios to the NPV of customer 

savings calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking, at both a 

7-percent and 3-percent discount rate. 

The CO2 values used in the columns of 

each table correspond to the four sets of 

SCC values discussed above. 

TABLE V.28—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER SAVINGS COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

TSL 

Customer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

SCC Case 

$12.0/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

medium value for 

NOX

SCC Case 

$40.5/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

medium value for 

NOX

SCC Case 

$62.4/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

medium value for 

NOX

SCC Case 

$119/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

medium value for 

NOX

Billion 2013$ 

1 ............................................................................................... 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.0 

2 ............................................................................................... 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.5 

3 ............................................................................................... 2.5 3.0 3.4 4.3 

4 ............................................................................................... 5.5 6.7 7.6 9.9 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31693 

TABLE V.28—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER SAVINGS COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS—Continued 

TSL 

Customer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

SCC Case 

$12.0/metric ton 

CO2* and 

medium value for 

NOX

SCC Case 

$40.5/metric ton 

CO2* and 

medium value for 

NOX

SCC Case 

$62.4/metric ton 

CO2* and 

medium value for 

NOX

SCC Case 

$119/metric ton 

CO2* and 

medium value for 

NOX

Customer NPV at 7% discount rate added with: 

SCC Case SCC Case SCC Case SCC Case 

$12.0/metric ton $40.5/metric ton $62.4/metric ton $119/metric ton 

TSL CO2* and CO2* and CO2* and CO2* and 

medium value medium value medium value medium value 

for NOX for NOX for NOX for NOX

Billion 2013$ 

1 ............................................................................................... 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 

2 ............................................................................................... 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.1 

3 ............................................................................................... 1.2 1.7 2.1 3.0 

4 ............................................................................................... 2.6 3.7 4.6 6.9 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton (2013$). 

Although adding the value of 

customer savings to the values of 

projected emission reductions provides 

a valuable perspective, two issues 

should be considered. First, the national 

operating cost savings are domestic U.S. 

customer monetary savings that occur as 

a result of market transactions, while 

the value of CO2 reductions is based on 

a global value. Second, the assessments 

of operating cost savings and the SCC 

are performed with different methods 

that use different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

equipment shipped in 2019 to 2048. The 

SCC values, on the other hand, reflect 

the present value of future climaterelated impacts resulting from the 

emission of one metric ton of CO2 in 

each year. These impacts continue well 

beyond 2100. 

8. 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)) DOE did not 

consider any other factors for this 

NOPR. 

C. Conclusion 

When considering proposed 

standards, the new or amended energy 

conservation standard 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, considering to the greatest 

extent practicable the seven statutory 

factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended 

standard must also ‘‘result in significant 

conservation of energy.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

DOE considered the impacts of 

standards at each TSL, beginning with 

a 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 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, such as lowincome households and seniors, who 

may be disproportionately affected by a 

national standard (see section V.B.1.b). 

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 (that is, 

renter versus owner; builder versus 

purchaser). Other literature indicates 

that with 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. This 

undervaluation suggests that regulation 

that promotes energy efficiency can 

produce significant net private gains (as 

well as producing social gains by, for 

example, reducing pollution). 

In DOE’s current regulatory analysis, 

potential changes in the benefits and 

costs of a regulation due to changes in 

consumer purchase decisions are 

included in two ways. First, if 

consumers forego a purchase of a 

product in the standards case, this 

decreases sales for product 

manufacturers and the impact on 

manufacturers attributed to lost revenue 

is included in the MIA. Second, DOE 

accounts for energy savings attributable 

only to products actually used by 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31694 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

67P.C. Reiss and M.W. White, Household 

Electricity Demand, Revisited, Review of Economic 

Studies (2005) 72, 853–883. 

68Alan Sanstad, Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

(2010) (Available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_

theory.pdf). 

consumers in the standards case; if a 

regulatory option decreases the number 

of products used by consumers, this 

decreases the potential energy savings 

from an energy conservation standard. 

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.67

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 efficiency 

standards, and potential enhancements 

to the methodology by which these 

impacts are defined and estimated in 

the regulatory process.68 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 Trial 

Standard Levels Considered for 

Residential Dehumidifiers 

Table V.29 and Table V.30 summarize 

the quantitative impacts estimated for 

each TSL for residential dehumidifiers. 

The efficiency levels contained in each 

TSL are described in section IV.A of this 

this. 

TABLE V.29—RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Cumulative FFC Energy Savings (quads) 

0.07 .......................... 0.11 .......................... 0.32 .......................... 0.79 

NPV of Customer Benefits (2013$ billion) 

3% discount rate ..................................................... 0.50 .......................... 0.78 .......................... 2.27 .......................... 4.96 

7% discount rate ..................................................... 0.24 .......................... 0.37 .......................... 1.04 .......................... 2.13 

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (million metric tons) ......................................... 4.27 .......................... 6.75 .......................... 19.31 ........................ 47.05 

NOX (thousand tons) ............................................... 6.33 .......................... 10.03 ........................ 28.79 ........................ 70.40 

Hg (tons) ................................................................. 0.01 .......................... 0.02 .......................... 0.05 .......................... 0.12 

N2O (thousand tons) ............................................... 0.06 .......................... 0.09 .......................... 0.26 .......................... 0.63 

N2O (thousand tons CO2eq) * ................................. 15.02 ........................ 23.84 ........................ 68.57 ........................ 168.12 

CH4 (thousand tons) ............................................... 18.70 ........................ 29.75 ........................ 85.88 ........................ 211.44 

CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq) * ................................. 523.57 ...................... 833.12 ...................... 2,404.57 ................... 5,920.22 

SO2 (thousand tons) ............................................... 3.56 .......................... 5.61 .......................... 15.95 ........................ 38.60 

Value of Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (2013$ million) ** ............................................. 31 to 432 ................. 49 to 679 ................. 137 to 1,931 ............ 328 to 4,656 

NOX—3% discount rate (2013$ million) ................. 23.3 .......................... 36.5 .......................... 103.7 ........................ 249.5 

NOX—7% discount rate (2013$ million) ................. 10.2 .......................... 15.9 .......................... 44.0 .......................... 102.7 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP. 

** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

TABLE V.30—RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV (2013$ millions) (Base Case INPV = 

186.5).

184.0 to 183.5 ......... 183.4 to 182.1 ......... 155.2 to 151.6 ......... 146.3 to 126.8 

Industry NPV (% change) ....................................... (1.4%) to (1.6%) ...... (1.6%) to (2.4%) ...... (16.8%) to (18.7%) .. (21.6%) to (32.0%) 

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2013$) 

PC1 (≤30.00 pints/day) ........................................... 31 ............................. 49 ............................. 64 ............................. 137 

PC2 (30.01–45.00 pints/day) .................................. 0 ............................... 0 ............................... 99 ............................. 164 

PC3 (>45.00 pints/day) ........................................... 50 ............................. 147 ........................... 147 ........................... 239 

PC4 (≤8.0 ft3) .......................................................... 207 ........................... 207 ........................... 207 ........................... 302 

PC5 (>8.0 ft3) .......................................................... 75 ............................. 416 ........................... 416 ........................... 542 

Consumer Simple PBP (years) 

PC1 (≤30.00 pints/day) ........................................... 0.0 ............................ 0.1 ............................ 0.2 ............................ 0.6 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31695 

TABLE V.30—RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS— 

Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

PC2 (30.01–45.00 pints/day) .................................. 0.0 ............................ 0.1 ............................ 0.2 ............................ 0.5 

PC3 (>45.00 pints/day) ........................................... 4.3 ............................ 2.8 ............................ 2.8 ............................ 3.8 

PC4 (≤8.0 ft3) .......................................................... 1.3 ............................ 1.3 ............................ 1.3 ............................ 5.5 

PC5 (>8.0 ft3) .......................................................... 0.7 ............................ 1.4 ............................ 1.4 ............................ 4.0 

% of Consumers That Experience Net Cost 

PC1 (≤30.00 pints/day) ........................................... 0% ........................... 0% ........................... 0% ........................... 10.3% 

PC2 (30.01–45.00 pints/day) .................................. 0% ........................... 0% ........................... 0.5% ........................ 5.4% 

PC3 (>45.00 pints/day) ........................................... 18.9% ...................... 11.7% ...................... 11.7% ...................... 31.4% 

PC4 (≤8.0 ft3) .......................................................... 8.4% ........................ 8.4% ........................ 8.4% ........................ 44.4% 

PC5 (>8.0 ft3) .......................................................... 1.4% ........................ 10.7% ...................... 10.7% ...................... 39.9% 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

DOE first considered TSL 4, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 4 would save 0.79 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be $2.13 billion 

using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 

$4.96 billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 47.1 Mt of CO2, 70.4 

thousand tons of NOX, 38.6 thousand 

tons of SO2, 0.12 ton of Hg, 0.6 thousand 

tons of N2O, and 211.4 thousand tons of 

CH4. The estimated monetary value of 

the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4 

ranges from $328 million to $4,656 

million. 

At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $137 for PC1, $134 for PC2, 

$239 for PC3, $302 for PC4, and $542 for 

PC5. The simple PBP is 0.6 years for 

PC1, 0.5 years for PC2, 3.8 years for PC3, 

5.5 years for PC4, and 4.0 years for PC5. 

The fraction of consumers experiencing 

a net LCC cost is 10.3 percent for PC1, 

5.4 percent for PC2, 31.4 percent for 

PC3, 44.4 percent for PC4, and 39.9 

percent for PC5. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $40.2 

million to a decrease of $59.7 million, 

which correspond to decreases of 21.6 

percent and 32.0 percent, respectively. 

Products that meet the efficiency 

standards specified by this TSL are 

forecast to represent less than 2 percent 

of shipments. As such, manufacturers 

would have to redesign nearly all 

products by the expected 2019 projected 

compliance date to meet demand. 

Redesigning all units to meet the current 

max-tech efficiency levels would 

require considerable capital and product 

conversion expenditures. At TSL 4, the 

capital conversion costs total as much as 

$33.1 million, 3.0 times the industry 

annual ordinary capital expenditure in 

2018 (the year leading up to amended 

standards). DOE estimates that complete 

platform redesigns would cost the 

industry $48.1 million in product 

conversion costs. These conversion 

costs largely relate to the extensive 

research programs required to develop 

new products that meet the efficiency 

standards at TSL 4. These costs are 

equivalent to 8.9 times the industry 

annual budget for research and 

development. As such, the conversion 

costs associated with the changes in 

products and manufacturing facilities 

required at TSL 4 would require 

significant use of manufacturers’ 

financial reserves (manufacturer capital 

pools), impacting other areas of business 

that compete for these resources and 

significantly reducing INPV. In 

addition, manufacturers could face a 

substantial impact on profitability at 

TSL 4. Because manufacturers are more 

likely to reduce their margins to 

maintain a price-competitive product at 

higher TSLs, especially in the lowercapacity portable segment, DOE expects 

that TSL 4 would yield impacts closer 

to the high end of the range of INPV 

impacts. If the high end of the range of 

impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 

4 could result in a net loss to 

manufacturers of 32.0 percent of INPV. 

Beyond the direct financial impact on 

manufacturers, TSL 4 may also 

contribute to the potential unavailability 

of products at certain capacities across 

the five product classes. The efficiencies 

at TSL 4 are theoretical levels that DOE 

determined dehumidifiers could 

achieve by incorporating the most 

efficient type of each component. DOE 

is not aware of any dehumidifiers 

currently available on the market that 

achieve the TSL 4 efficiencies. To meet 

TSL 4, all products would be required 

to incorporate the highest efficiency 

compressors; however, manufacturers 

indicated that few such compressors are 

available in the range of compressor 

capacities suitable for residential 

dehumidifiers, and it is unlikely that 

substantially more would become 

available if standards at TSL 4 were 

adopted. In addition, the specific 

compressor capacities available at any 

given time are driven largely by the 

markets for other products with higher 

shipments (e.g., room air conditioners), 

and thus dehumidifier manufacturers 

may be constrained in their design 

choices. Because DOE assumed 

manufacturers would optimize all 

components at TSL 4, including the use 

of larger heat exchangers and 

permanent-magnet blower motors, 

manufacturers would not have 

alternative design pathways to achieve 

the max-tech efficiency level in the 

absence of high efficiency compressors. 

Therefore, DOE expects that those 

dehumidifier platforms for which a 

suitable high efficiency compressor is 

not available would be unable to meet 

the max-tech efficiency level associated 

with TSL 4. While this would likely not 

eliminate entire product classes from 

the market, it has the potential to 

eliminate dehumidifiers of certain 

capacities within a given product class. 

The potential for this impact on 

manufacturers of high-capacity portable 

and whole-home dehumidifiers is 

exacerbated by this segment’s low 

production volumes, which limits 

manufacturers’ ability to influence the 

availability of higher efficiency 

components from their vendors. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes 

that at TSL 4 for residential 

dehumidifiers, the benefits of energy 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, emission reductions, and the 

estimated monetary value of the CO2

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the economic burden on 

some consumers, the potential impact 

on product availability, and the impacts 

on manufacturers, including the 

conversion costs and profit margin 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31696 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

69To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2014, 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 (2020, 2030, etc.), and then 

discounted the present value from each year to 

2014. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 

7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the 

value of CO2 reductions, for which DOE used casespecific discount rates, as shown in Table V.22. 

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. 

impacts that could result in a large 

reduction in INPV. Consequently, the 

Secretary has tentatively concluded that 

TSL 4 is not economically justified. 

However, if this situation were to 

change in the future, such that 

components could be made available in 

sufficient quantities to sustain higher 

production volumes across the range of 

product classes, DOE would consider 

TSL 4. 

DOE then considered TSL 3, which 

would save an estimated 0.32 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be $1.04 billion 

using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 

$2.27 billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 19.3 Mt of CO2, 28.8 

thousand tons of NOX, 16.0 thousand 

tons of SO2, 0.05 tons of Hg, 0.3 

thousand tons of N2O, and 85.9 

thousand tons of CH4. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $137 

million to $1,931 million. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $64 for PC1, $99 for PC2, 

$147 for PC3, $207 for PC4, and $416 for 

PC5. The simple PBP is 0.2 years for 

PC1 and PC2, 2.8 years for PC3, 1.3 

years for PC4, and 1.4 years for PC5. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing a net 

LCC cost is zero percent for PC1, 0.5 

percent for PC2, 11.7 percent for PC3, 

8.4 percent for PC4, and 10.7 percent for 

PC5. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $31.3 

million to a decrease of $34.9 million, 

which correspond to decreases of 16.8 

percent and 18.7 percent, respectively. 

Products that meet the efficiency 

standards specified at this TSL level 

represent 37 percent of shipments in 

2018 (the year leading up to amended 

standards). As such, manufacturers 

would have to overhaul a significant 

fraction of products by the 2019 

projected compliance date to meet 

demand. Redesigning significant 

component systems or developing 

entirely new platforms to meet the 

efficiency levels specified by this TSL 

would require considerable capital and 

product conversion expenditures. At 

TSL 3, the estimated capital conversion 

costs total as much as $20.5 million, 

which is 1.8 times the industry annual 

capital expenditure in 2018 (the year 

leading up to the amended standards). 

DOE estimates that the redesigns 

necessary to meet these standards 

would cost the industry $30.2 million in 

product conversion costs. These 

conversion costs largely relate to the 

research programs and re-testing 

required to develop products that meet 

the efficiency standards set forth by TSL 

3, and are 5.6 times the industry annual 

budget for research and development in 

2018, the year leading up to amended 

standards. As such, the conversion costs 

associated with the changes in products 

and manufacturing facilities required at 

TSL 3 would still require significant use 

of manufacturers’ financial reserves 

(manufacturer capital pools), impacting 

other areas of business that compete for 

these resources and significantly 

reducing INPV. Because manufacturers 

are more likely to reduce their margins 

to maintain a price-competitive product 

at higher TSLs, DOE expects that TSL 3 

would yield impacts closer to the high 

end of the range of INPV impacts as 

indicated by the preservation of per-unit 

operating profit markup scenario. If this 

is the case, TSL 3 could result in a net 

loss of 18.7 percent in INPV to 

manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifiers. 

Although some dehumidifiers may 

require higher efficiency compressors, 

the preservation of per-unit operating 

profit markup scenario efficiency levels 

specified at TSL 3 offer manufacturers 

multiple design pathways to meet the 

standard. This in turn offers 

manufacturers flexibility in meeting 

standards at this level and maintaining 

product offerings at certain capacities 

should a high efficiency compressor be 

unavailable at a given compressor 

capacity. To this end, units are already 

available that meet the efficiency levels 

specified at TSL 3. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes 

that at TSL 3 for residential 

dehumidifiers, the benefits of energy 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, emission reductions, estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions, and positive average LCC 

savings would outweigh the negative 

impacts on some consumers and on 

manufacturers, including the conversion 

costs that could result in a reduction in 

INPV for manufacturers. 

After considering the analysis and the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 3, the 

Secretary tentatively concludes that this 

TSL will offer the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 

in significant conservation of energy 

without eliminating or making 

unavailable any product classes or 

portions of product classes. Therefore, 

DOE today proposes to adopt TSL 3 for 

residential dehumidifiers. The proposed 

amended energy conservation standards 

for residential dehumidifiers, which are 

expressed as a minimum allowable IEF, 

are shown in Table V.31. 

TABLE V.31—PROPOSED AMENDED

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

FOR RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIERS

Portable dehumidifier product 

capacity 

(pints/day) 

Minimum 

integrated 

energy 

factor 

(L/kWh) 

30.00 or less ............................. 1.30 

30.01–45.00 .............................. 1.60 

45.01 or more ........................... 2.80 

Whole-Home Dehumidifier Product Case 

Volume (cubic feet) 

8.0 or less ................................. 2.09 

More than 8.0 ........................... 3.52 

DOE requests comments on the 

proposed standards as well as any 

information or data that the agency 

should consider in adopting either a 

lower or higher TSL. 

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Standards 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

net benefit is the sum of: (1) The 

annualized national economic value 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, 

which is another way of representing 

consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary 

value of the benefits of CO2 and NOX

emission reductions.69

Table V.32 shows the annualized 

values for residential dehumidifiers 

under TSL 3, expressed in 2013$. The 

results under the primary estimate are 

as follows. Using a 7-percent discount 

rate for benefits and costs other than 

CO2 reductions, for which DOE used a 

3-percent discount rate along with the 

SCC series corresponding to a value of 

$40.5/ton in 2015 (in 2013$), the 

estimated cost of the proposed 

standards for residential dehumidifiers 

is $12.6 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the estimated 

annualized benefits are $122 million per 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31697 

year in reduced equipment operating 

costs, $35.9 million per year in CO2

reductions, and $4.6 million per year in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $150 million per 

year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs and the SCC series 

corresponding to a value of $40.5/ton in 

2015 (in 2013$), the estimated cost of 

the proposed standards for residential 

dehumidifiers in today’s rule is $12.5 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the benefits are $142.7 

million per year in reduced operating 

costs, $35.9 million per year in CO2

reductions, and $6.0 million per year in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $172 million per 

year. 

TABLE V.32—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED AMENDED STANDARDS (TSL 3) FOR RESIDENTIAL

DEHUMIDIFIERS SOLD IN 2019–2048 

Discount rate 

Million 2013$/year 

Primary 

estimate * 

Low net 

benefits 

estimate * 

High net 

benefits 

estimate * 

Benefits 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ....................................................... 7% .............................

3% .............................

122.0 .............

142.7 .............

116.8 .............

136.3 .............

126.3 

149.2 

CO2 Reduction at $12.0/t ** ................................................................... 5% ............................. 10.9 ............... 10.7 ............... 11.1 

CO2 Reduction at $40.5/t ** ................................................................... 3% ............................. 35.9 ............... 35.3 ............... 36.7 

CO2 Reduction at $62.4/t ** ................................................................... 2.5% .......................... 52.2 ............... 51.4 ............... 53.4 

CO2 Reduction at $119/t ** .................................................................... 3% ............................. 110.9 ............. 109.2 ............. 113.4 

NOX Reduction † .................................................................................... 7% .............................

3% .............................

4.65 ...............

5.96 ...............

4.59 ...............

5.86 ...............

4.73 

6.09 

Total Benefits †† ............................................................................. 7% plus CO2 range ... 138 to 238 ..... 132 to 231 .... 142 to 244 

7% ............................. 163 ................ 157 ................ 168 

3% plus CO2 range ... 160 to 260 .... 153 to 251 ..... 166 to 269 

3% ............................. 185 ................ 177 ................ 192 

Costs 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs .................................................. 7% .............................

3% .............................

12.6 ...............

12.5 ...............

12.3 ...............

12.0 ...............

13.7 

13.9 

Total Net Benefits 

Total †† ........................................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range ... 125 to 225 .... 120 to 218 ..... 128 to 231 

7% ............................. 150 ................ 144 ................ 154 

3% plus CO2 range ... 147 to 247 .... 141 to 239 ..... 152 to 255 

3% ............................. 172 ................ 165 ................ 178 

* The results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the dehumidifiers purchased from 2019 through 2048. Costs incurred 

by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2019 in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as 

part of incremental equipment costs. The extent of the costs and benefits will depend on the projected price trends of dehumidifiers, as the consumer demand for dehumidifiers is a function of dehumidifier prices. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of 

energy prices and housing starts from the AEO 2015 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental 

product costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected product price trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1 

of this notice. 

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2013$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2013 under several scenarios. The values of 

$12.0, $40.5, and $62.4 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The 

value of $119 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. 

† The $/ton values used for NOX are described in section IV.L.2. 

†† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $40.5/ton in 2015 

(in 2013$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the 

labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

requires each agency to identify the 

problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that this 

proposed standards address are as 

follows: 

(1) Insufficient information and the 

high costs of gathering and analyzing 

relevant information leads some 

consumers to miss opportunities to 

make cost-effective investments in 

energy efficiency. 

(2) In some cases the benefits of more 

efficient equipment are not realized due 

to misaligned incentives between 

purchasers and users. An example of 

such a case is when the equipment 

purchase decision is made by a building 

contractor or building owner who does 

not pay the energy costs. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31698 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

70See http://www.regulations.doe.gov/

certification-data/. 

71See http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_

dsbs.cfm. 

72See http://www.hoovers.com/. 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of residential dehumidifiers 

that are not captured by the users of 

such equipment. These benefits include 

externalities related to public health, 

environmental protection, and national 

security that are not reflected in energy 

prices, such as reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases that 

impact human health and global 

warming. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

today’s regulatory action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section (3)(f)(1) of Executive Order 

12866. Accordingly, section 6(a)(3) of 

the Executive Order requires that DOE 

prepare a regulatory impact analysis 

(RIA) on this rule and that OIRA in 

OMB review this rule. DOE presented to 

OIRA for review the draft rule and other 

documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including the RIA, and has 

included these documents in the 

rulemaking record. The assessments 

prepared pursuant to Executive Order 

12866 can be found in the technical 

support document for this rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563. 76 

FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 

13563 is supplemental to and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

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 

Executive Order 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, OIRA 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, DOE believes 

that this NOPR is consistent with these 

principles, including the requirement 

that, to the extent permitted by law, 

benefits justify costs and that net 

benefits are maximized. 

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 Executive Order 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 Web site (http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has 

prepared the following IRFA for the 

products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

a. Methodology for Estimating the 

Number of Small Entities 

For the manufacturers of residential 

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. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 

2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 

53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 

CFR part 121. The size standards are 

listed by NAICS code and industry 

description and are available at: 

www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/

Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 

Manufacturing of whole-home 

residential dehumidifiers is classified 

under NAICS codes 333415: AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing, whereas manufacturing 

of portable residential dehumidifiers is 

classified under 335210: Small 

Electrical Appliance Manufacturing. 

The SBA sets a threshold of 750 

employees or less for an entity to be 

considered as a small business for either 

of these categories. 

To estimate the number of companies 

that could be small business 

manufacturers of products covered by 

this rulemaking, DOE conducted a 

market survey using available public 

information to identify potential small 

manufacturers. DOE’s research included 

searches of public databases (e.g., DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Database,70

the SBA Database 71), individual 

company Web sites, and market 

research tools (e.g., Hoovers Web site 72) 

to create a list of companies that 

manufacture or sell products covered by 

this rulemaking. DOE also asked 

stakeholders and industry 

representatives if they were aware of 

any other small manufacturers during 

manufacturer interviews and at DOE 

public meetings. DOE reviewed 

publicly-available data and contacted 

select companies on its list, as 

necessary, to determine whether they 

met the SBA’s definition of a small 

business manufacturer of covered 

residential dehumidifiers. DOE screened 

out companies that do not manufacture 

products covered by this rulemaking, do 

not meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign owned and 

operated. 

DOE initially identified 25 

manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifier products sold in the U.S. 

DOE then determined that of the 25 

companies, 20 were either large 

manufacturers, exclusively import 

products manufactured overseas, or are 

foreign owned and operated. DOE 

identified the remaining five 

manufacturers as domestic 

manufacturers that meet the SBA’s 

definition of a ‘‘small business’’ and 

manufacture products covered by this 

rulemaking. 

b. Manufacturer Participation 

Before issuing this Notice, DOE 

attempted to contact all the small 

business manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifiers identified. DOE was only 

able to establish contact with two small 

business manufacturers, both of which 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31699 

consented to being interviewed as part 

of the manufacturing impact analysis. 

DOE also obtained information about 

small business impacts while 

interviewing large manufacturers. 

c. Industry Structure 

The five domestic small business 

manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifiers identified account for a 

small fraction of total industry 

shipments. In 2014, 96.8 percent of 

residential dehumidifiers sold in the 

U.S. are small portable units (belonging 

to product classes 1 and 2) and are made 

by large, diversified manufacturers. The 

remaining 3.2 percent of the market 

consists of high-capacity portable and 

whole-home dehumidifiers, which are 

primarily manufactured by small 

business manufacturers. 

d. Comparison of Large and Small 

Entities 

Several factors may contribute to a 

disproportionate burden on small 

business manufacturers from amended 

energy conservation standards for 

residential dehumidifiers relative to 

their larger counterparts. One way in 

which small manufacturers could be at 

a disadvantage is that they may be 

disproportionately affected by product 

and capital conversion costs. Product 

redesign, testing, and certification costs 

tend to be fixed per basic model and do 

not scale with sales volume. Both large 

and small business manufacturers must 

make investments in R&D to redesign 

their products, but small businesses lack 

the sales volumes to sufficiently recoup 

these upfront investments without 

substantially marking up their products. 

Similarly, upfront capital investments 

in new manufacturing capital for 

platform redesigns, as well as 

depreciated manufacturing capital, can 

only be spread across a lower volume of 

shipments for small business 

manufacturers. 

In addition, because small business 

manufacturers typically have fewer 

engineers than large manufacturers, they 

must allocate a greater portion of their 

available human resources to meet an 

amended regulatory standard. Because 

engineers may need to spend more time 

redesigning and testing existing models 

as a result of the amended standard, 

they may have less time to develop new 

products. 

Furthermore, smaller manufacturers 

may lack the purchasing power of larger 

manufacturers. For example, because 

fan motor suppliers give volume 

discounts to manufacturers based on the 

number of motors they purchase, larger 

manufacturers may have a pricing 

advantage because they make higher 

volume purchases. This purchasing 

power difference between high-volume 

and low-volume orders applies to other 

residential dehumidifier components as 

well, including compressors and heat 

exchangers. DOE expects that certain 

larger manufacturers of lower-capacity 

portable dehumidifiers may even 

manufacture heat exchangers in-house. 

Additionally, because small business 

manufacturers produce higher-capacity 

units, they require larger/custom 

components (e.g., larger compressors 

and heat exchangers), than do the lowercapacity portable product manufacturers 

who account for the majority of the 

dehumidifier market. Because of the 

low-volume nature of the high-capacity 

portable and whole-home dehumidifier 

market, certain technological 

improvements to components may only 

be developed for lower-capacity 

portable products, or with significant 

lag time for application in high-capacity 

portable and whole-home dehumidifier 

products. 

In terms of access to the capital 

required to cover the conversion costs 

associated with reaching the proposed 

standards, small business manufacturers 

would likely be forced to take on 

additional debt, whereas larger 

diversified manufacturers of small 

portable products would be better 

equipped to fund purchases with 

existing cash flow from operations. 

Additionally, since the recession of 

2007 and 2008, small business lending 

has dropped substantially due to a 

combination of tightened lending 

standards, increasing collateral 

requirements and reduced focus on 

small business credit markets. Thus, 

small businesses generally have access 

to less capital than do larger companies. 

2. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

Since the standards in today’s 

proposed rule for residential 

dehumidifiers could cause small 

manufacturers to be at a disadvantage 

relative to large manufacturers, DOE 

cannot certify that the proposed 

standards would not have a significant 

impact on a significant number of small 

businesses, and consequently, DOE has 

prepared this IRFA. 

DOE estimates that the impacts on 

small business manufacturers are 

significantly disproportionate at TSLs 1 

and 2, and relatively proportionate at 

TSLs 3 and 4. At TSL 3, the level 

proposed in today’s notice, DOE 

estimates capital conversion costs of 

$1.7 million and product conversion 

costs of $5.0 million in the years leading 

up to the standard year for a typical 

small manufacturer. This is compared to 

capital conversion costs of $18.8 and 

product conversion costs of $25.2 

million in the years leading up to the 

standard year for a typical large 

manufacturer. These costs and their 

impacts are described in detail below. 

To estimate the potential impact on 

small business manufacturers, DOE 

used the GRIM results for high-capacity 

portables and whole-home 

dehumidifiers (product classes 3–5) to 

estimate the annual revenue, EBIT, 

capital expenditure, and R&D expense 

for a typical small manufacturer. DOE 

then compared these costs to the 

required product conversion costs at 

each TSL for both an average small 

manufacturer and an average large 

manufacturer. Table VI.1 and Table VI.2 

show the capital and product 

conversion costs for a typical small 

manufacturer versus those of a typical 

large manufacturer. Table VI.3 and 

Table VI.4 report the total conversion 

costs as a percentage of annual R&D 

expense, annual revenue, and EBIT for 

a typical small and large manufacturer, 

respectively. In the following tables, 

TSL 3 represents the proposed standard. 

TABLE VI.1—COMPARISON OF TYPICAL SMALL AND LARGE MANUFACTURER’S CAPITAL CONVERSION COSTS

Trial standard level 

Capital conversion costs 

for typical small 

manufacturer 

(2013$ millions) 

Capital conversion costs 

for typical large 

manufacturer 

(2013$ millions) 

TSL 1 ................................................................................................................... $1.3 $—

TSL 2 ................................................................................................................... 1.7 ..................................................

TSL 3 ................................................................................................................... 1.7 18.8 

TSL 4 ................................................................................................................... 2.2 30.9 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31700 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VI.2—COMPARISON OF TYPICAL SMALL AND LARGE MANUFACTURER’S PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS

Trial standard level 

Product conversion costs 

for typical small 

manufacturer 

(2013$ millions) 

Product conversion costs 

for typical large 

manufacturer 

(2013$ millions) 

TSL 1 ................................................................................................................... $3.9 $0.04 

TSL 2 ................................................................................................................... 5.0 0.05 

TSL 3 ................................................................................................................... 5.0 25.2 

TSL 4 ................................................................................................................... 6.6 41.5 

TABLE VI.3—IMPACTS OF CONVERSION COSTS ON A TYPICAL SMALL MANUFACTURER

Trial standard level 

Capital conversion 

cost as a percentage 

of annual capital 

expenditures 

Product conversion 

cost as a percentage 

of annual R&D 

expense 

Total conversion 

cost as a percentage 

of annual revenue 

Total conversion 

cost as a percentage 

of annual EBIT 

TSL 1 ............................................... 130 774 14 235 

TSL 2 ............................................... 167 1002 18 304 

TSL 3 ............................................... 167 1002 18 304 

TSL 4 ............................................... 222 1328 23 403 

* Note: Annual Capex, R&D, Revenues, and EBIT figures are for 2014. 

TABLE VI.4—IMPACTS OF CONVERSION COSTS ON A TYPICAL LARGE MANUFACTURER

Trial standard level 

Capital conversion 

cost as a percentage 

of annual capital 

expenditures 

Product conversion 

cost as a percentage 

of annual R&D 

expense 

Total conversion 

cost as a percentage 

of annual revenue 

Total conversion 

cost as a percentage 

of annual EBIT 

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

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

TSL 3 ............................................... 219 600 14 229 

TSL 4 ............................................... 359 988 22 377 

* Note: Annual Capex, R&D, Revenues, and EBIT figures are for 2014. 

Based on the above results for TSL 3, 

DOE understands that the potential 

conversions costs faced by small 

manufacturers may be greater than those 

faced by larger manufacturers. However, 

the disproportionality of these impacts 

would be much greater at TSLs 1 and 2. 

Small manufacturers have less 

engineering staff and lower R&D 

budgets. They also have lower capital 

expenditures annually. As a result, the 

conversion costs incurred by a small 

manufacturer would likely be a larger 

percentage of its annual capital 

expenditures, R&D expenses, revenue, 

and EBIT, than would be for a large 

manufacturer. 

3. 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 rule being proposed 

today. 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The discussion above analyzes the 

disproportionality of impacts on small 

businesses that would result from the 

other TSLs DOE considered. TSLs lower 

than the proposed TSL would not be 

expected to significantly reduce the 

impacts on small businesses, and would 

actually result in higher 

disproportionate impacts on small 

businesses. As a result, and given that 

DOE is required by EPCA to establish 

standards that achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, DOE rejected the 

lower TSLs. 

In addition to the other TSLs being 

considered, the NOPR TSD includes a 

regulatory impact analysis in chapter 

17. For residential dehumidifiers, this 

report discusses the following policy 

alternatives: (1) No standard, (2) 

consumer rebates, (3) consumer tax 

credits, (4) manufacturer tax credits, and 

(5) early replacement. While these 

alternatives may mitigate to some 

varying extent the economic impacts on 

small entities compared to the 

standards, DOE determined that the 

energy savings of these alternatives are 

significantly smaller than those that 

would be expected to result from 

adoption of the proposed standard 

levels. Accordingly, DOE is declining to 

adopt any of these alternatives and is 

proposing the standards set forth in this 

rulemaking. (See chapter 17 of the 

NOPR TSD for further detail on the 

policy alternatives DOE considered.) 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

For example, individual manufacturers 

may petition for a waiver of the 

applicable test procedure. Further, 

EPCA provides that a manufacturer 

whose annual gross revenue from all of 

its operations does not exceed 

$8,000,000 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. Additionally, Section 504 of 

the Department of Energy Organization 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority 

for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued 

under EPCA in order to prevent ‘‘special 

hardship, inequity, or unfair 

distribution of burdens’’ that may be 

imposed on that manufacturer as a 

result of such rule. Manufacturers 

should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

E, and part 1003 for additional details. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of residential 

dehumidifiers must certify to DOE that 

their products comply with any 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31701 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their products 

according to the DOE test procedures for 

residential 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 

residential dehumidifiers. 76 FR 12422 

(Mar. 7, 2011). The collection-ofinformation requirement for the 

certification and recordkeeping is 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 20 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, DOE has determined that the 

proposed rule fits within the category of 

actions included in Categorical 

Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise 

meets the requirements for application 

of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, 

B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and App. B, B(1)- 

(5). The proposed rule fits within this 

category of actions because it is a 

rulemaking that establishes energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

products or industrial equipment, and 

for which none of the exceptions 

identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. 

Therefore, DOE has made a CX 

determination for this rulemaking, and 

DOE does not need to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

this proposed rule. DOE’s CX 

determination for this proposed rule is 

available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov/. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 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) 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 

Executive Order 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; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 

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 Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531) For a 

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 small governments. 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 http://

energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/

documents/umra_97.pdf. 

Although today’s proposed rule does 

not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may require expenditures of 

$100 million or more by the private 

sector. Specifically, the proposed rule 

will likely result in a final rule that 

could require expenditures of $100 

million or more. Such expenditures may 

include: (1) investment in research and 

development and in capital 

expenditures by residential 

dehumidifiers manufacturers in the 

years between the final rule and the 

projected compliance date for the new 

standards, and (2) incremental 

additional expenditures by consumers 

to purchase higher-efficiency residential 

dehumidifiers, starting at the projected 

compliance date for the applicable 

standard. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31702 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) 

The content requirements of section 

202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private 

sector mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the NOPR and the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis’’ section of the NOPR TSD for 

this proposed rule respond to those 

requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

(2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the proposed rule unless DOE 

publishes an explanation for doing 

otherwise, or the selection of such an 

alternative is inconsistent with law. As 

required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), today’s 

proposed rule would establish energy 

conservation standards for residential 

dehumidifiers that are designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that DOE has 

determined to be both technologically 

feasible and economically justified. A 

full discussion of the alternatives 

considered by DOE is presented in the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ section of 

the NOPR TSD for today’s proposed 

rule. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. 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 

Under Executive Order 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 18, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this regulation 

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 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). DOE has reviewed 

today’s 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 

Executive Order 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 

today’s regulatory action, which sets 

forth energy conservation standards for 

residential 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 the proposed rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

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. Id. at 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. 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. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: http://energy.gov/

eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemakingpeer-review-report-0. 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES 

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this notice. If you plan to attend the 

public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Please note that foreign nationals 

participating in the public meeting are 

subject to advance security screening 

procedures which require advance 

notice prior to attendance at the public 

meeting. If a foreign national wishes to 

participate in the public meeting, please 

inform DOE of this fact as soon as 

possible by contacting Ms. Regina 

Washington at (202) 586–1214 or by 

email: Regina.Washington@ee.doe.gov 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31703 

so that the necessary procedures can be 

completed. 

DOE requires visitors to with laptop 

computers and other devices, such as 

tablets, to be checked upon entry into 

the building. Any person wishing to 

bring these devices into the Forrestal 

Building will be required to obtain a 

property pass. Visitors should avoid 

bringing these devices, or allow an extra 

45 minutes to check in. Please report to 

the visitor’s desk to have devices 

checked before proceeding through 

security. 

Due to the REAL ID Act implemented 

by the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), there have been recent 

changes regarding ID requirements for 

individuals wishing to enter Federal 

buildings from specific states and U.S. 

territories. Driver’s licenses from the 

following states or territory will not be 

accepted for building entry and one of 

the alternate forms of ID listed below 

will be required. DHS has determined 

that regular driver’s licenses (and ID 

cards) from the following jurisdictions 

are not acceptable for entry into DOE 

facilities: Alaska, American Samoa, 

Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, 

Oklahoma, and Washington. Acceptable 

alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. 

Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced 

Driver’s License or Enhanced ID-Card 

issued by the states of Minnesota, New 

York or Washington (Enhanced licenses 

issued by these states are clearly marked 

Enhanced or Enhanced Driver’s 

License); a military ID or other Federal 

government issued Photo-ID card. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site at: http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/product.aspx/

productid/55. 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 plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least one week before the 

public meeting and may be emailed, 

hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE 

prefers to receive requests and advance 

copies via email. Please include a 

telephone number to enable DOE staff to 

make follow-up contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the 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 

public meeting. After the public 

meeting, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings as 

well as on any aspect of the rulemaking 

until the end of the comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

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 allow, 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 and 

comment on statements made by others. 

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 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

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 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this notice. 

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 notice. 

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 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31704 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or 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 mail or hand delivery/ 

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to 

submit printed copies. No facsimiles 

(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. 

According 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, postal mail, or 

hand delivery/courier 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. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known or available from other 

sources; (4) whether the information has 

previously been made available to 

others without obligation concerning its 

confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 

competitive injury to the submitting 

person that would result from public 

disclosure; (6) when such information 

might lose its confidential character due 

to the passage of time; and (7) why 

disclosure of the information would be 

contrary to the public interest. 

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. The proposed product classes for 

residential dehumidifiers: (1) Portable, 

less than 30.00 pints/day; (2) portable, 

30.01 to 45.00 pints/day; (3) portable, 

45.01 or more pints/day; (4) wholehome, case volume less than or equal to 

8.0 cubic feet; and (5) whole-home, case 

volume greater than 8.0 cubic feet (see 

section IV.A.2 of this notice or chapter 

3 of the NOPR TSD). 

2. Information or data about the 

availability of dehumidifiers with smart 

controls, including those currently 

available on the market or any working 

prototypes (see section IV.A.3 of this 

notice or chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD). 

3. The efficiency levels considered for 

this analysis. DOE specifically seeks 

information from interested parties on 

whether the revised max-tech levels, 

which incorporate savings associated 

with permanent-magnet fan motors, are 

technologically feasible, and on whether 

the updated whole-home dehumidifier 

efficiency levels, which account for the 

updated test conditions, are appropriate. 

DOE also seeks comment on potential 

utility impacts at any of the analyzed 

efficiency levels (see section IV.C.1 of 

this notice or chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD). 

4. Whether to promote installation of 

any of the design options, including 

variable-speed compressors, improved 

controls, and hygrometers, even though 

the resulting efficiency gains would not 

be measurable with the existing test 

procedure (see section IV.C.2 of this 

notice of chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD). 

5. The determination that 

manufacturers would likely rely on 

improved compressor efficiency and 

increased heat exchanger sizes to 

achieve efficiencies below the max-tech 

level, and may incorporate permanentmagnet motors to further improve 

efficiency. DOE also requests feedback 

on the incremental manufacturer 

production costs DOE estimated at each 

efficiency level (see section IV.C.2 of 

this notice or chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD). 

6. The inputs to the energy use 

determination for portable and wholehome dehumidifiers, especially the 

operating hours by mode for each 

product type (see section IV.E of this 

notice or chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD). 

7. The base-case efficiency 

distribution for each product class (see 

section IV.F.8 of this notice or chapter 

8 of the NOPR TSD). 

8. Whether the annual efficiency 

improvement (i.e., 0.25%) that DOE 

estimated is appropriate for the basecase analysis and if not, a more 

appropriate approach for DOE to project 

the base-case and standards-case 

efficiency distributions for the analysis 

period (see section IV.F.8 of this notice 

or chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD). 

9. The inputs to the shipments model, 

particularly historical shipments of 

whole-home dehumidifiers, and the 

market share of portable dehumidifiers 

and whole-home dehumidifiers (see 

section IV.G of this notice or chapter 9 

of the NOPR TSD). 

10. Dehumidifier manufacturers that 

would be considered small businesses 

and the potential impacts of energy 

conservation standards on these 

manufacturers (see sections IV.J and 

V.B.2.d of this notice or chapter 12 of 

the NOPR TSD). 

11. The proposed standards as well as 

any information or data that the agency 

should consider in adopting either a 

lower or higher TSL. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Small businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 14, 

2015. 

David T. Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 31705 

430 of chapter II, subpart C, of title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations, as 

set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. In § 430.32, add paragraph (v)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(v) * * * 

(3) Dehumidifiers manufactured on or 

after [date 3 years after the publication 

of the final rule] shall have an integrated 

energy efficiency ratio that meets or 

exceeds the following values: 

Portable dehumidifier product 

capacity 

(pints/day) 

Minimum 

integrated 

energy efficiency factor 

(liters/kWh) 

30.00 or less ......................... 1.30 

30.01–45.00 .......................... 1.60 

Portable dehumidifier product 

capacity 

(pints/day) 

Minimum 

integrated 

energy efficiency factor 

(liters/kWh) 

45.01 or more ....................... 2.80 

Whole-home dehumidifier 

product case volume 

(cubic feet) 

8.0 or less ............................. 2.09 

More than 8.0 ....................... 3.52 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–12773 Filed 6–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS