DOE’s proposal could stop the next efficiency standard
DOE proposed rewriting the procedures it must follow before setting a new or revised energy conservation standard. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking came out July 7, 2026, at 91 Fed. Reg. 42034, Docket EERE-2025-BT-STD-0001, RIN 1904-AF72.
The proposal does not repeal or change any efficiency standard already in force. It changes the procedure for setting future standards. DOE has not finalized the rule as of October 30, 2026. It remains a proposal and could change.
DOE estimates that its proposed savings threshold would retain 91.5 percent of the program’s energy savings while eliminating 35 percent of rulemakings. That is 30 of 86 rulemakings. The number matters because it shows the direct effect DOE expects from its own test.
A caller may hear that the government is changing furnace rules and assume a quote changed overnight. It did not. The dispute is about which future standards get written at all.
The proposal would bring back the 2020 Process Rule framework
DOE proposes to make the Process Rule binding on DOE again for actions that increase stringency. Actions that reduce requirements would remain discretionary.
The proposal would add a definition of “significant energy savings” based on a 10-percent reduction in full fuel cycle energy use over 30 years, or a 2 quad reduction over 30 years. FFC means full fuel cycle.
DOE also asked for comments on alternatives ranging from 5 to 15 percent or 0.5 to 5 quads. The 2020 rule used 10 percent site energy or 0.3 quads. Those are different measurements and different thresholds.
The proposal would bring back a “walk up” method for choosing a standard level. It would add consumer economic thresholds, reinstate a “clear and convincing evidence” definition, and return several sections to language from the 2020 Process Rule.
The consumer thresholds described in a joint industry letter include an installed cost increase of up to 10 percent, a share of consumers with a net cost of up to 20 percent, and a maximum payback of 50 percent of product lifetime.
DOE also proposes to remove the specific environmental and emissions-monetization factor from the list it weighs. It would replace that factor with a reference to other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
The comment deadline started as August 6, 2026. DOE extended it 15 days to August 21 after trade groups requested more time. Those groups had asked for September 8.
Manufacturers want a process they can plan around
A joint comment letter dated August 21 was signed by ACCA, AHRI, HARDI, PHCC, AHAM, NAM, NEMA, CTA, and others. The groups said they “commend DOE for proposing to return, in large part, to the February and August 2020 version of the Process Rule.”
Their position is procedural, not a request to rewrite standards already in force. They said a process that is “binding, predictable, and grounded in the 2020 framework best serves consumers, manufacturers, and the Department alike.”
Their concern is practical. “Manufacturers have built product lines, tooling, and certification schedules around the compliance timelines tied to standards currently in force,” the letter said, and those investments deserve a transparent, predictable process if DOE proposes changes.
The groups support a 75-day minimum comment period and a 180-day gap between a test procedure and a standards proposal. They did not oppose the walk-up approach.
They also asked DOE to keep any threshold objective and reasonable rather than set it so high that future standards become impossible. They asked that the carve-out for deregulatory actions not apply retroactively to standards already finalized. They said the environmental-factor change needed more discussion.
HARDI’s Alex Ayers told ACHR News that DOE’s language about “permanently ending” mandates overstates the proposal because it does not repeal standards. He also warned that a process rule can be reversed by a later administration.
AHAM CEO Kelly Mariotti said the Process Rule “has been subject to change from administration to administration” and urged Congress to lock reforms into law. A bill introduced in August 2026 would codify the Process Rule.
Critics say the thresholds could block cost-effective upgrades
Critics see the same thresholds as a barrier that makes future updates harder, even when an update would save energy and make economic sense for consumers.
Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, called the proposal an “obstacle course of restrictions” that “would hinder the department from carrying out its congressional mandate,” according to Utility Dive.
Their strongest argument is simple. A savings threshold screens out standards before DOE reaches the question of whether a particular efficiency improvement is worth requiring. Cost thresholds add another screen. A rule could produce real savings and still fail because it does not meet the proposed energy or consumer-cost tests.
DOE’s own estimate supplies the number critics point to: 35 percent of rulemakings, or 30 of 86, would be eliminated under the proposal’s threshold.
That is why reasonable people split on the rule. Manufacturers and shops want predictability for inventory, training, tooling, and certification. Critics argue that the bar could block cost-effective efficiency gains before they reach the final decision.
Your quotes do not change this season
Every unit on your truck is quoted the same way this week. No standard in force changes because DOE issued this proposal.
Do not tell a customer that a future standard is coming. Do not tell them it is dead. If someone asks whether to wait on a new furnace, say the rule is a proposal, the date is not settled, and the final level is not settled.
That distinction matters for current jobs. The DOE 95% AFUE furnace standard has a manufacture-date compliance date of December 18, 2028, and it is before the D.C. Circuit. Your team can point customers to the DOE 95% AFUE furnace rule and the separate regional standards installation-date issue.
In the first cold weeks, shop owners describe a familiar pattern. A caller sees a headline about the government changing furnace rules and asks whether that is why the quote went up, or whether to wait until the rules settle. The owner or dispatcher ends up explaining federal rulemaking early in the morning before anyone has a job booked.
Dial 72 answers the phone 24/7 and sends you a text call summary after each call. Calls about replacing equipment are flagged as replacement leads. A caller asking whether to wait on a new furnace shows up as a replacement lead with the caller’s own words in the summary, not a generic message. That gives your team a clean handoff for winning replacement leads, alongside other rule questions such as the EPA refrigerant rule challenge.
For this season, quote what is legal to install today. Tell customers the DOE Process Rule is still only a proposal. Save the future-standard question in the call summary, then follow up with the facts that are settled.
