Opinion ID: 6104167
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Proxy for shipment data

Text: The last challenge to the Final Rule relates to the DOE’s proxy for shipment data. All agree direct shipment data are optimal. In the absence of such data for six of the eight categories of commercial packaged boilers, however, the DOE turned to publicly available model listings as a proxy for shipments. If 30 per cent of model listings had a certain energy efficiency, then the DOE assumed that the same percent of shipments had that efficiency. During the comment period, manufacturers argued that the distribution of efficiencies in model listings is not an adequate proxy for the distribution of efficiencies in sales. Responding in the preamble to the Final Rule, the DOE defended its proxy in two ways. First it said model listings likely approximate shipments because “[i]n general, manufacturers are likely to offer models with rated inputs and efficiencies where demand is highest.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 1635. Second, the DOE noted that AHRI had provided historical shipment information for two categories of boilers, and the differences between the proxy 20 data and the shipment information for these two categories turned out to be minimal. Id. Although the rationale of the DOE’s first point is not entirely clear, its second point vindicates its position and is powerful enough to carry the day. Even when clear and convincing evidence is required, there is no bar to relying upon a hypothesis that has been empirically validated, here by the comparison between the proxy data and the shipment data AHRI had provided for two of the eight types of boilers. Especially considering the conclusory nature of the petitioners’ challenge to the proxy data — they provided no evidence of the degree to which any inaccuracy might affect the DOE’s calculations and conclusions — the DOE’s response was adequate. The reasonableness of the DOE’s reliance upon the proxy data is magnified when one considers that the AHRI has historical shipment data for all relevant categories of packaged boilers but refused to share them with the agency, a point made by the Respondent-Intervenors that the petitioners did not dispute in their Reply Brief. The upshot is that we cannot say the use of the proxy data, on its own, made it unreasonable for the Secretary to conclude a more stringent standard was supported by clear and convincing evidence.