Background
The Department of Energy issued a direct final rule in February 2024 establishing energy-conservation standards for consumer cooking products, including stoves, ovens, and cooktops. The rule imposed maximum annual-energy-consumption requirements and prohibited linear power supplies. Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, DOE could use direct final rulemaking only after receiving a joint recommendation from interested persons fairly representative of relevant viewpoints, and it had to withdraw the rule if adverse comments might provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal.
Mississippi and other States submitted timely adverse comments. They argued, among other things, that the recommendation underlying the rule did not fairly represent relevant viewpoints and that DOE had failed to consider whether requiring more complex switching power supplies would shorten appliance life, raise maintenance and replacement costs, and offset projected 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. A direct final rule is “prescribed” for purposes of the EPCA’s 60-day review period when DOE completes the rulemaking process by rejecting adverse comments and adhering to the rule—not when the rule is initially published. The court reasoned that DOE’s contrary interpretation would allow judicial review to expire before the congressionally mandated 110-day comment period ended.
On the merits, the majority held that the States’ comments met the EPCA’s low threshold for mandatory withdrawal. The recommendation did not fairly represent relevant viewpoints because DOE excluded opposing States despite knowing that many had objected to similar standards, and the States supplied a reasonable basis to question whether DOE adequately considered the reliability, lifespan, maintenance, utility, and energy consequences of requiring switching power supplies. The court therefore granted the petition, set aside the invalidly retained rule, and remanded to DOE. Judge Haynes concurred only in the jurisdictional conclusion and would have remanded for DOE to reconsider its decisions in light of the appellate record.
Key Takeaways
- The EPCA’s 60-day deadline to challenge a direct final rule begins when DOE rejects adverse comments and adheres to the rule.
- DOE must withdraw a direct final rule when one or more adverse comments may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal; commenters need not conclusively prove the rule unlawful.
- A direct final rule requires a recommendation fairly representative of relevant viewpoints and cannot be used to bypass substantial, known opposition.
Why It Matters
The decision limits DOE’s ability to use expedited direct final rulemaking for contested energy-efficiency standards. It also preserves judicial review for parties that use the full statutory comment period and wait for DOE to resolve their objections before filing suit.
More broadly, the ruling emphasizes that agencies invoking streamlined rulemaking mechanisms must comply strictly with the procedural safeguards Congress attached to them, including meaningful stakeholder representation and mandatory withdrawal when adverse comments raise reasonable statutory concerns.