DOE extends comment period on appliance standards Process Rule rewrite to Aug. 21, 91 FR 47155

What the record shows

The extension notice is two pages long. On July 13, six trade associations asked DOE to move the deadline from August 6 to September 8 [1]. They were the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute; the Air Movement and Control Association International; the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; the North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers; the National Electrical Manufacturers Association; and Plumbing Manufacturers International [1]. The notice says the groups cited “the scope and complexity of the proposed revisions” and asked DOE to align this docket with a companion request for information on analytic methods, whose comments are due September 8 [1, 3]. Several repeated the request during DOE’s July 15 webinar [1]. DOE granted half of the time sought [1].

The underlying proposal runs from page 42034 to 42083 [2]. DOE lists its changes in one sentence: make appendix A binding on DOE for certain actions, revise objectives to match recent executive orders, define “significant energy savings,” reinstate a comparative “walk up” analysis, add economic thresholds, restore a description of clear and convincing evidence, and return several sections to the text of the 2020 Process Rule with minor edits [2].

Binding in one direction. Proposed section 3 states that the procedures “are binding on DOE for actions that are anticipated to increase the stringency of a standard or increase the scope of products subject to compliance with a standard” [2]. For other actions, DOE “will satisfy the requirements in EPCA and may choose to apply additional provisions” [2]. DOE explains the split by saying deregulatory decisions can draw on data from an existing standard, while new standards rest on projections [2].

Energy savings threshold. EPCA bars a new or amended standard that would not produce significant conservation of energy [2]. DOE proposes to define that as at least a 10 percent reduction in full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy use, or a 2-quad reduction, both over 30 years [2]. The proposed regulatory text tests a maximum technologically feasible level against 2.0 quads first, and against the 10 percent figure second; if neither is met, the analysis ends with a proposed determination of no significant savings [2]. DOE gives an example: its 2017 and 2024 walk-in cooler and freezer rules, at 0.85 quads (8 percent) and 1.6 quads (6 percent), would each have fallen short, though together they exceed 2 quads [2].

Economic cutoffs. A standard level would presumptively not be economically justified if it exceeded any of three limits [2]:

• an increase of more than 10 percent in installed cost over the baseline;
• more than 20 percent of consumers projected to incur net costs;
• a simple payback period longer than 50 percent of the product’s average useful life.

DOE says the Secretary keeps discretion to weigh EPCA’s seven factors, and asks whether a five-year payback limit would work better [2].

Walk up, not walk down. Under the proposal, DOE would compare each more stringent level with the status quo and with the level just below it [2]. The current method “starts at the most stringent possible standard,” which DOE says “favors technological feasibility over economic justification” [2]. DOE’s illustration is a water heater standard that raises installation costs 106 percent, a figure it says the walk up would put “clearly on the cost side of the ledger” [2].

Comment periods. DOE proposes to restore the 2020 rule’s 75-day minimum for pre-proposal and proposed rule documents, up from the current 60-day floor for proposals [2].

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs found the proposal significant under Executive Order 12866, and DOE classifies it as a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192 [2].

Where it sits in the process

The Process Rule was first codified in July 1996 and was amended four times between 2020 and 2024 [2]. A February 2020 final rule made it binding and set a significant-savings threshold of 0.3 quads or 10 percent site savings over 30 years; an August 2020 rule added the comparative analysis [2]. A December 2021 final rule, effective January 12, 2022, said it would “remove unnecessary obstacles” to DOE’s statutory obligations [5]. That rule and an April 2024 rule returned the Process Rule to non-binding status and dropped the threshold [2].

The current proposal traces to Executive Order 14154, signed January 20, 2025, whose section 2 declares a policy to “safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances,” naming lightbulbs, dishwashers, gas stoves, water heaters and shower heads among others [6]. DOE published a request for information on April 17, 2025, at 90 FR 16093, with comments due June 2, 2025, and said a proposed rule would follow [4].

Which DOE appliance dockets close on which dates?

Two related comment windows are now open [1, 3]:

• Process Rule proposal, EERE-2025-BT-STD-0001: comments due August 21, 2026 [1].
• Analytic methods request for information, EERE-2022-BT-OT-0004: comments due September 8, 2026 [3]. It asks about DOE’s assumptions, models and methods, and about a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee report on methods for setting building and equipment standards [3].

The proposal ties the two together. DOE says it would revisit the proposed energy and economic thresholds if the methods review changes how savings are counted, for example by using a period other than 30 years [2].

Positions on the record

DOE’s account of comments on the 2025 request shows the split. AHRI, the Joint Gas Associations, NEMA, NAFEM, Rinnai and others supported a mandatory Process Rule; AHRI and BHI said it should reduce litigation risk [2]. Lennox asked DOE to reinstate five 2020 measures: a binding rule, test procedures final 180 days before standards proposals, minimum comment periods, savings thresholds and comparative analysis [2]. MHI said standards for water heaters, gas furnaces, showerheads, electric spas and freezers “would have been avoided” under the 2020 rule, as DOE summarizes it [2].

Opposed were the Joint Advocates, the State Agencies, Ceres and an anonymous commenter, who said the current rule is adequate [2]. The Joint Advocates said an overly rigid approach could miss savings, delay rulemakings and increase procedural litigation [2]. The State Agencies said repeated changes to the Process Rule have caused market uncertainty and urged DOE not to pursue a separate analytic methods request [2]. DOE issued that request on the same day as the proposal [3].

Reading-room questions

Questions readers bring to this record, answered from the documents cited below.

What is the new comment deadline for DOE's Process Rule proposal?

August 21, 2026, under Docket No. EERE-2025-BT-STD-0001 and RIN 1904-AF72 [1]. The original deadline was August 6 [1, 2].

Did DOE grant the trade groups' request to extend to September 8?

Only in part. Six manufacturer associations asked for September 8 to match the analytic methods docket, and DOE gave 15 days instead, to August 21 [1, 3].

What counts as significant energy savings under the proposed Process Rule?

At least a 10 percent cut in full-fuel-cycle energy use, or a 2-quad cut, over 30 years [2]. DOE also asks about alternatives from 5 to 15 percent or 0.5 to 5 quads, and about separate thresholds for products and equipment [2].

Would the Process Rule be binding on DOE again?

Yes for actions expected to make a standard stricter or widen its scope, but not for actions such as certain deregulatory steps or decisions not to regulate further [2]. The 2021 amendments had made it non-binding guidance [2, 5].

What consumer cost limits does DOE propose for new appliance standards?

A standard level would presumptively not be economically justified if it raised installed cost more than 10 percent over the baseline, left more than 20 percent of consumers with net costs, or had a simple payback above 50 percent of average product life [2]. The Secretary would keep discretion to weigh EPCA's seven factors [2].

Note on sourcing

This report rests on the proposed rule, the extension notice and the related request for information as published in the Federal Register, along with the earlier Process Rule documents, Executive Order 14154 and the 1975 statute. Comments filed in response to the April 2025 request for information are described as the proposed rule summarizes them; the underlying filings, the July 13 extension request and the threshold analysis table DOE placed in Docket No. EERE-2025-BT-STD-0001 are not separately examined. The proposed rule's summary table appears in the Federal Register as an image and is not quoted. No public statement from efficiency advocates or state energy offices on the extension had appeared as of publication.

Sources

1. Energy Conservation Program: Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures; Extension of Public Comment Period, 91 FR 47155 (FR Doc. 2026-15211)Federal Register (Department of Energy), July 28, 2026 · federalregister.gov
2. Energy Conservation Program: Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures, notice of proposed rulemaking, 91 FR 42034 (FR Doc. 2026-13674)Federal Register (Department of Energy), July 7, 2026 · federalregister.gov
3. Energy Conservation Program: Review of DOE's Analytic Methods for Setting Energy Conservation Standards, request for information, 91 FR 41578 (FR Doc. 2026-13673)Federal Register (Department of Energy), July 7, 2026 · federalregister.gov
4. Energy Conservation Program: Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies (Process Rule), request for information, 90 FR 16093 (FR Doc. 2025-06330)Federal Register (Department of Energy), April 17, 2025 · federalregister.gov
5. Energy Conservation Program for Appliance Standards: Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies, final rule, 86 FR 70892 (FR Doc. 2021-25725)Federal Register (Department of Energy), December 13, 2021 · federalregister.gov
6. Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, 90 FR 8353Federal Register (Executive Office of the President), January 29, 2025 · federalregister.gov
7. Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871U.S. Government Publishing Office (Statutes at Large), December 22, 1975 · govinfo.gov

Subject headings

• DOE
• appliance standards
• energy efficiency
• EPCA
• Process Rule

Cross-references

Other register entries filed under the same subject headings.

1. Sept. 3, 2026No. 0021 · Report · 2 shared headingsDOE stays federal-building fossil fuel rule a third time, to March 1, 2027, 91 FR 56371
2. Sept. 14, 2026No. 0023 · Report · 1 shared headingDOE asks for input on foreign grid-equipment limits under E.O. 14421, 91 FR 57322
3. Aug. 28, 2026No. 0018 · Record of decision · 1 shared headingDOE and Montana DEQ issue final EIS for North Plains Connector HVDC line, DOE/EIS-0568