Reported / Citable
Background
The Department of Energy issued a direct final rule in February 2024 establishing new and amended energy-conservation standards for consumer cooking products, including ovens, stoves, and cooktops. Among other requirements, the rule imposed maximum annual energy-consumption standards and prohibited linear power supplies. Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, DOE may use direct final rulemaking when it receives a joint recommendation from interested persons fairly representative of relevant viewpoints and determines that the proposed standards satisfy the statute’s economic and technological requirements.
The Act required DOE to solicit comments for at least 110 days and to withdraw the rule if one or more adverse comments might provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal. Several states timely objected, arguing in part that the joint recommendation did not fairly represent relevant viewpoints and that DOE had not adequately considered whether requiring more complex switching power supplies would shorten appliance lifespans, increase maintenance costs, or reduce expected energy savings. DOE rejected the objections in an August 12, 2024 confirmation notice, and the states petitioned for review 59 days later.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit denied DOE’s motion to dismiss, holding that the petition was timely. The court concluded that a direct final rule is “prescribed” for purposes of the Act’s 60-day review period when DOE completes its decisionmaking and adheres to the rule after considering adverse comments—not when the rule is initially published. Because DOE confirmed its adherence on August 12 and the states petitioned within 60 days, the court had authority to review the challenge.
On the merits, the court held that the states’ comments met the Act’s low threshold for mandatory withdrawal. The comments reasonably questioned whether the supporting joint statement fairly represented relevant viewpoints, particularly because opposing states were not included, and whether DOE had adequately considered the reliability, maintenance, lifespan, utility, and energy consequences of effectively requiring switching power supplies. DOE therefore violated the Act by refusing to withdraw the direct final rule. The court granted the petition, set aside the invalidly retained rule, and remanded to DOE for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- The 60-day period for challenging this direct final rule began when DOE rejected the adverse comments and adhered to the rule, not on the rule’s initial publication date.
- Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, DOE must withdraw a direct final rule when an adverse comment may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal; commenters need not conclusively prove the rule unlawful.
- A direct final rule must rest on a joint recommendation fairly representative of relevant viewpoints, and DOE must consider statutory factors such as maintenance costs, product lifespan, utility, performance, and energy savings.
Why It Matters
The decision limits DOE’s ability to use expedited direct final rulemaking for disputed energy-efficiency standards. It emphasizes that the procedure is intended for consensus measures and that supported objections can require withdrawal in favor of ordinary notice-and-comment rulemaking.
The ruling also preserves judicial review for parties that use the full statutory comment period, rejecting an interpretation that could cause the deadline for court review to expire before the comment process ends or before DOE responds to timely objections.