Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 58
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`STATES OF NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA,
`COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, ILLINOIS, MAINE,
`MARYLAND, MINNESOTA, NEW JERSEY,
`OREGON, VERMONT, WASHINGTON, THE
`COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, THE
`PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, THE
`DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND THE CITY OF
`NEW YORK,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`DAN BROUILLETTE, as SECRETARY OF THE
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
`and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`ENERGY,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`Case No. 20-cv-9362
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs, the States of New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois,
`
`Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, the Commonwealth
`
`of Massachusetts, the People of the State of Michigan, the District of Columbia and the City of
`
`New York, (collectively plaintiffs), representing over 111 million people of the United States,
`
`bring this action to challenge the failure of the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and
`
`its Secretary, Dan Brouillette (collectively DOE) to meet federal statutory deadlines for
`
`reviewing and strengthening energy efficiency standards under the Energy Policy and
`
`Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), Subchapter III, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6291-6317, as amended.
`
`2.
`
`EPCA authorizes national energy conservation standards for a variety of
`
`consumer and commercial products and industrial equipment. Among other things, EPCA
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 58
`
`establishes initial minimum energy efficiency standards for covered products and requires DOE
`
`to prescribe new or amended standards by rulemaking. To ensure that standards are set at the
`
`maximum efficiency level that is technologically feasible and economically justified, EPCA
`
`mandates that DOE meet certain deadlines for periodic review and revision of those standards.
`
`See 42 U.S.C. §§ 6295(m)(1), 6313(a)(6), 6316(a).
`
`3.
`
`Today, energy efficiency standards established under EPCA cover more than 60
`
`categories of residential and commercial products and commercial equipment. Together, these
`
`products use about 90 percent of the total amount of energy consumed in homes in the United
`
`State, 60 percent of the energy used in the country’s commercial buildings, and 30 percent of
`
`the energy used in our nation’s industries.
`
`4.
`
`The energy conservation standards program for consumer appliances and
`
`commercial equipment developed under EPCA has been highly effective in improving our
`
`nation’s energy efficiency, saving consumers, businesses and governments money, and avoiding
`
`emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants. DOE estimates that, by 2030, efficiency
`
`standards adopted through 2016 will save more energy than the entire nation consumes in one
`
`year and will save consumers more than $2 trillion on their utility bills. Reduced energy use also
`
`avoids emissions of harmful air pollutants, including those that contribute to climate change.
`
`According to DOE, existing standards will avert emissions of more than 7.9 billion metric tons
`
`of carbon dioxide (CO2), an amount greater than all United States greenhouse gas emissions
`
`generated in a year.
`
`5.
`
`Despite Congress’ explicit directive that DOE regularly evaluate existing
`
`efficiency standards to determine whether such standards can be made stronger, DOE has
`
`missed EPCA’s deadlines for reviewing and updating efficiency standards for 25 consumer and
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 3 of 58
`
`commercial or industrial product categories. A list of these products is attached to the
`
`Complaint as Attachment 1.
`
`6.
`
`According to energy experts, updated standards for these 25 product categories
`
`could save over $580 billion in energy costs and avoid over two billion metric tons of CO2
`
`emissions by the year 2050.
`
`7.
`
`DOE's failure to meet its statutory deadlines deprives plaintiffs, their residents
`
`and their businesses of the many benefits updated standards would provide, including
`
`conservation of natural resources, lower energy bills, a more reliable electricity grid, and
`
`reduced emissions of harmful air pollutants that contribute to climate change and threaten public
`
`health.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`DOE’s unlawful delay requires prompt, appropriate redress from this Court.
`
`In EPCA’s citizen suit provision Congress conferred on this Court the explicit
`
`authority to order prompt relief that secures DOE compliance with statutory deadlines for
`
`reviewing and amending existing standards. See 42 U.S.C. § 6305(a).
`
`10.
`
`Accordingly, plaintiffs request that this Court order the following relief: (a) issue
`
`a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) stating that DOE has failed to meet
`
`deadlines specified under EPCA for reviewing and updating energy efficiency standards for the
`
`25 categories of products described in this complaint; and (b) issue a permanent injunction
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 6305(a) requiring DOE to comply with its
`
`statutory deadlines and other requirements for such products according to an expeditious
`
`schedule to be determined and enforced by this Court.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 4 of 58
`
`JURISDICTION, PRE-SUIT NOTICE, AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
`
`6305(a)(2), (3) (EPCA’s citizen suit provision); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 2201
`
`(declaratory judgment), 2202 (injunctive relief), 1361 (mandamus relief), and 1346(a)(2) (civil
`
`action against the United States); and 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 706 (scope of review).
`
`12.
`
`DOE’s failure to comply with EPCA’s statutory deadlines is a failure to perform
`
`a non-discretionary duty and is subject to judicial review, 42 U.S.C. § 6305(a)(2), (3).
`
`13.
`
`DOE’s failure to comply with its statutory deadlines is also agency action
`
`unreasonably delayed and unlawfully withheld, subject to judicial review pursuant to the
`
`Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706.
`
`14.
`
`To the extent notice is required with respect to any of the claims herein, on
`
`August 10, 2020, plaintiffs sent to the DOE Secretary, with a copy to the Federal Trade
`
`Commission (FTC), a 60-day notice of intent to sue, based on DOE’s failure to comply with its
`
`non-discretionary duty to meet specified deadlines for reviewing and updating efficiency
`
`standards for 25 consumer and commercial product categories. A copy of the notice is attached
`
`as Attachment 2.
`
`15. More than 60 days have passed since plaintiffs sent the notice letter, and DOE
`
`has yet to fulfill its mandatory obligations.
`
`16.
`
`Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391(e) because defendants are an officer and an agency of the United States and two
`
`plaintiffs, the State of New York and the City of New York, reside in this district.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 5 of 58
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`PARTIES
`
`17.
`
`The States of New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine,
`
`Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the
`
`Commonwealth of Massachusetts are each sovereign entities that bring this action on their own
`
`behalf to protect state property, on behalf of their citizens and residents to protect their health
`
`and well-being, and to protect natural resources held in trust by each respective state.
`
`18.
`
`The District of Columbia is a municipal entity that brings this action on its own
`
`behalf to protect District property and on behalf of its residents to protect their health and well-
`
`being.
`
`19.
`
`The City of New York is a municipal entity that brings this action on its own
`
`behalf to protect City property and on behalf of its residents to protect their health and well-
`
`being.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Interests
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiffs have significant proprietary and sovereign interests in updated energy
`
`efficiency standards, as well as the economic and environmental benefits such standards confer.
`
`Improved energy efficiency benefits consumers, businesses and governments by decreasing
`
`energy consumption, lowering energy bills and increasing energy reliability.
`
`21.
`
`Energy efficiency standards also reduce air pollution that is harmful to public
`
`health and the environment, such as CO2 and other gases that contribute to climate change.
`
`Because increased energy efficiency avoids unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions associated
`
`with the burning of fossil-fuels, improving efficiency is a key part of plaintiffs’ strategies to
`
`combat climate change.
`
`22.
`
`Therefore, plaintiffs rely on national energy efficiency standards to complement
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 6 of 58
`
`their policies for affordable, reliable and clean energy. DOE’s failure to meet EPCA deadlines
`
`for updating energy efficiency standards for the 25 product categories that are the subject of this
`
`Complaint harms plaintiffs by delaying the benefits of improved standards. In the absence of a
`
`declaratory judgment and permanent injunction requiring DOE to comply with its mandatory
`
`duties, DOE’s delay will likely continue to cause harm to the plaintiffs.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiffs have a history of significant engagement in energy efficiency issues,
`
`including participating in litigation to ensure DOE’s compliance with EPCA’s statutory
`
`deadlines and other rulemaking requirements. See, e.g., New York v. Bodman, Nos. 05-7807,
`
`7808 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (multistate action to compel DOE compliance with statutory rulemaking
`
`deadlines for energy efficiency standards covering over 20 product categories); New York v.
`
`USDOE, No. 19-3652 (2d Cir. 2019) (multistate challenge to DOE withdrawal of definitional
`
`rules expanding scope of light bulb efficiency standards); New York v. USDOE, No. 20-743 (2d
`
`Cir. 2019) (multistate challenge to DOE determination not to increase stringency of light bulb
`
`efficiency standards); NRDC v. Perry, 940 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2019) (multistate action to compel
`
`DOE publication of four final efficiency standards); AHRI v. DOE, No. 20-1068 (D.C. Cir. 2020)
`
`(multistate intervention in support of DOE standard for commercial packaged boilers); New York
`
`v. Bodman, Nos. 08-0311, 0312 (2d Cir. 2008) (multistate action challenging DOE efficiency
`
`standards for furnaces); NRDC v. Abraham, 355 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2004) (multistate challenge to
`
`DOE adoption of less stringent efficiency standards for central air conditioners); NRDC v.
`
`Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (multistate challenge to DOE determination not to
`
`adopt efficiency standards). Plaintiffs also have participated in DOE’s energy standards program
`
`rulemakings by submitting comments urging DOE to focus its resources on meeting EPCA
`
`deadlines for reviewing and updating standards instead of diverting its resources on discretionary
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 7 of 58
`
`rulemaking. See, e.g., Multistate Comments in Response to DOE’s Prioritization Process (May
`
`15, 2020) available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2020-BT-STD-0004-
`
`0014.
`
`24.
`
`Up-to-date, national energy efficiency standards are important tools in plaintiffs’
`
`efforts to combat global climate change and its adverse impacts on public health and safety and
`
`the environment.
`
`25.
`
`The wide-ranging impacts of climate change include: increased heat-related
`
`deaths and illness, damage to or loss of coastal areas due to increased flooding and rising sea
`
`levels, disrupted ecosystems that can result in loss of habitat and increased vectors for disease,
`
`more severe weather events such as hurricanes and storms, longer and more frequent droughts
`
`that impair agricultural productivity or contribute to wildfires, loss of biodiversity, and mass
`
`migrations of human and animal populations in response to these changes. Rigorous research led
`
`by experts at 13 federal agencies has confirmed that climate change is human-caused; that
`
`continued growth in emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will produce economic losses
`
`across all sectors of the United States’ economy; that mitigation measures do not “yet approach
`
`the scale considered necessary to avoid substantial damages to the economy, environment, and
`
`human health over the coming decades;” and that absent significant increases in global
`
`mitigation efforts, “[i]t is very likely that some physical and ecological impacts will be
`
`irreversible for thousands of years, while others will be permanent.” See U.S. Global Change
`
`Research Program, “Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National
`
`Climate Assessment, Volume II” (D.R. Reidmiller et al. eds., 2018) at 26, 1347, available at
`
`https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_2018_FullReport.pdf (detailing harmful
`
`impacts of climate change on region-by-region basis). Future climate change impacts will be
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 8 of 58
`
`primarily determined by the level of continued emissions of greenhouse gases, including those
`
`from power generating plants that supply consumer and commercial products and industrial
`
`equipment with energy.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiffs have adopted state and local laws and policies to address the urgent
`
`threat posed by climate change. For example, the State of New York recently enacted the
`
`Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), N.Y. Environmental Conservation
`
`Law (ECL) art. 75, which sets a statewide goal to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 60 percent
`
`of 1990 levels by 2030, and to 15 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. ECL § 75-0107; see also N.Y.
`
`Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6, Part 251 (CO2 emission limits for electric generating facilities). On top
`
`of these statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements, the CLCPA also requires
`
`that 70 percent of New York’s electricity come from renewable energy sources by 2030, and that
`
`100 percent of the state’s electricity come from carbon-free energy generation sources by 2040.
`
`N.Y. Public Service Law § 66-p (2). These ambitious climate change and clean energy targets
`
`will require, among other things, transitioning the state’s energy infrastructure from fossil-fuel to
`
`renewable energy-based technologies combined with significant reductions in residential and
`
`commercial energy use. Until such changes are complete, improving the efficiency of consumer
`
`appliances and commercial equipment through federally mandated standards is critical to
`
`meeting New York’s emissions goals.
`
`27.
`
`Other plaintiffs have taken similar actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
`
`and address climate change. See, e.g., California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
`
`(Assembly Bill 32, Chapter 488, September 27, 2006 and Senate Bill 32, Chapter 249,
`
`September 8, 2016); Cal. Health & Safety Code § 38500-38599; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 17, §§
`
`95801-96022; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-7-102(2), § 25-7-105 (1)(e)(I); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-200c
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 9 of 58
`
`& Conn. Agencies Regs. § 22a-174-31 (implementing nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas
`
`Initiative); Md. Code Ann., Pub. Util. Cos. § 7-703 (establishing that Maryland will receive 50%
`
`of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 21N, §§ 3(b), 3(d) &
`
`4(a); 310 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 7.73, 7.74 & 7.75; Minn. Stat. § 216H.02 (setting a goal to reduce
`
`statewide greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050); Minn. Stat. §§ 216B.1691,
`
`subds. 2a, 2f (establishing renewable energy standards and a goal for each utility to produce 10
`
`percent of electric retail sales from solar energy by 2030); New Jersey Global Warming
`
`Response Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 26:2C-37; Or. Rev. Stat. § 469.503(2); 2020 Vt. Acts &
`
`Resolves No. 153 (establishing Vermont Climate Council and requiring Vermont to reduce
`
`greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050); and Wash. Rev. Code §§
`
`80.80.040 and 19.405.040.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiffs have also adopted a variety of state and local energy efficiency
`
`programs and initiatives to support affordable and reliable energy. See, e.g., NYS Energy
`
`Research Development Agency, Statewide Low- and Moderate-Income Portfolio
`
`Implementation Plan (initiative to increase access to energy efficiency and clean energy solutions
`
`for low-to-moderate income households and affordable multifamily buildings pursuant to NYS
`
`Public Service Commission Matter of a Comprehensive Energy Efficiency Initiative, Case No.
`
`18-M-0084 (Feb. 8, 2018)), available at
`
`http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=55825&M
`
`NO=18-M-0084; Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25310 (California Energy Commission to double energy
`
`efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses by 2030); California Energy
`
`Commission, 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan, available at
`
`https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/business_meetings/2019_packets/2019-12-
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 10 of 58
`
`11/Item_06_2019%20California%20Energy%20Efficiency%20Action%20Plan%20(19
`
`-IEPR-06).pdf; Wash. Rev. Code § 19.285 and § 43.21F.088(1)(a) (state to “pursue all cost
`
`effective energy efficiency and conservation as the state preferred energy resource.”); Maine
`
`Comprehensive Energy Plan Update (Feb. 2016) (investing in energy efficiency to address above
`
`average energy costs); 5 M.R.S. § 1764-A (2015) (reducing energy consumption in Maine-
`
`owned facilities); Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 16a-1, 16a-3d, 16a-35k (targeting energy efficiency and
`
`demand reduction) and §§ 16a-46e to 46j (targeting residential and commercial energy
`
`efficiency); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, §§ 202a, 8001(a); see also id. §§ 209(d), 218c (providing goals
`
`and requirements for energy efficiency and conservation programs, including development of
`
`comprehensive energy efficiency programs); ORS 469.010(1)(b) (energy conservation as Oregon
`
`Department of Energy’s core mission) and ORS 276.900 - .915 (goal of 20 percent energy use
`
`reduction in all state-owned buildings by 2023); Md. Code Ann., Pub. Util. Cos. § 7-211 (annual
`
`energy savings target of at least 2.0 percent per year) and Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t §§ 9-20A-
`
`01 to 9-20A-0 (low interest loan program to promote energy conservation and energy efficiency
`
`in Maryland); 1997 Mass. Acts ch. 164 (electric investor-owned utilities in the Commonwealth
`
`of Massachusetts required to implement energy efficiency programs such that percentage of
`
`annual electricity needs are met through efficiency) and 2008 Mass. Acts ch. 169 (mandating
`
`procurement of “all available energy efficiency and demand reduction resources that are cost
`
`effective or less expensive than supply”); Minn. Stat. § 216B.2401 (“it is the energy policy of the
`
`state of Minnesota to achieve annual energy savings equal to at least 1.5 percent of annual retail
`
`energy sales of electricity and natural gas through cost-effective energy conservation
`
`improvement programs and . . . appliance standards . . .”).
`
`29.
`
`DOE’s delay in reviewing and updating efficiency standards for the 25 categories
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 11 of 58
`
`of products at issue harms plaintiffs’ sovereign interests by frustrating their respective energy
`
`and climate change policy goals.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiffs also have strong proprietary interests in DOE’s timely improvement of
`
`energy efficiency standards. For example, many of the plaintiffs purchase and use products that
`
`are the subject of this action. These appliances and equipment are used in state- or city-owned
`
`office buildings, warehouses, maintenance shops, hospitals, and residential care or educational
`
`facilities. Plaintiffs will face increased energy costs if DOE fails to update its efficiency
`
`standards and thereby compel manufacturers to improve the energy efficiency of their product
`
`offerings over time. For states that provide low-income households with financial assistance to
`
`reduce their energy burden, the lack of updated standards results in higher state expenditures. In
`
`addition, the negative health effects of pollution resulting from increased energy production will
`
`mean increased expenditures for states that share in the cost of their residents’ medical care.
`
`DOE’s delay only adds to plaintiffs’ economic burden of mitigating and responding to the
`
`potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change.
`
`31.
`
`Finally, plaintiffs rely on DOE to adopt and maintain up-to-date national energy
`
`efficiency standards because of their potential preemptive effect. States are generally preempted
`
`from enacting energy efficiency standards for products covered under EPCA that are subject to
`
`an existing standard. 42 U.S.C. § 6297. DOE's failure to update and strengthen federal efficiency
`
`standards, coupled with EPCA’s preemption clause, creates a gap in energy efficiency efforts
`
`that is harmful to plaintiffs and their citizens and residents.
`
`Defendants
`
`32.
`
`Dan Brouillette is the Secretary of DOE and is named in his official capacity. He
`
`is responsible for administration of that agency in accordance with EPCA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6291-
`
`6317. His principal place of business is at DOE, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 12 of 58
`
`20585.
`
`33.
`
`DOE is an agency of the United States. It is the agency responsible for
`
`implementation of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6291-6317. DOE’s headquarters are located at 1000
`
`Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585.
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
`
`The Importance of Energy Efficiency Standards
`
`34.
`
`Electricity generation and natural gas use in the United States cause a wide range
`
`of adverse environmental impacts, including air pollution emissions that threaten public health
`
`and contribute to global climate change. The impacts of electricity generation also include water
`
`pollution, such as toxic mercury pollution harmful to fish and aquatic ecosystems. The
`
`extraction, production and transport of natural gas and other fossil fuels for electricity generation
`
`also have major adverse environmental effects.
`
`35.
`
`Cost-effective, technologically feasible appliance efficiency standards reduce the
`
`demand for electricity, natural gas and other energy resources while providing consumers with
`
`the same level of service from their products. Thus, the energy conserved through efficiency
`
`standards yields substantial public health and environmental benefits.
`
`36.
`
`Energy efficiency standards also have important consumer economic benefits.
`
`Because efficient products use less energy, consumers enjoy significantly reduced utility bills
`
`over product lifetimes. Moreover, by reducing energy demand, efficiency standards reduce the
`
`price of energy for all consumers, particularly in competitive wholesale energy markets. For
`
`example, when electricity demand peaks upward in the summer, the cost of additional power
`
`generation needed to meet the incremental growth in demand increases dramatically. This is
`
`because electricity is then sourced from higher priced, less efficient, and often more polluting
`
`power plants that are called upon to operate during these periods of high demand. Thus, even
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 13 of 58
`
`relatively small decreases in electricity peak demand can dramatically reduce the market price
`
`for, and environmental consequences of obtaining, power during peak periods.
`
`37.
`
`Energy efficiency standards also help consumers because they help address the
`
`“split incentive” problem often experienced by people who rent apartments and houses: landlords
`
`have an economic incentive to buy the cheapest appliances without regard to energy efficiency,
`
`but tenants pay the energy bills. As a result, absent strong energy efficiency standards, tenants
`
`can end up with unnecessarily high bills, a particularly acute problem in large urban areas such
`
`as New York City, where many residents live in multi-family rental housing units. This “split
`
`incentive” problem also can arise where developers build and sell finished homes: developers
`
`have an incentive to buy and install the least expensive fixtures and appliances without regard to
`
`their energy efficiency, while buyers shoulder the higher operational costs.
`
`38.
`
`Energy efficiency standards are particularly helpful to moderate and low-income
`
`consumers, who typically spend more on energy as a percentage of income than other income
`
`groups.
`
`39.
`
`Finally, national energy efficiency standards help consumers by making energy
`
`efficient products the norm, rather than the exception. These standards ensure that consumers
`
`will find readily available energy efficient products to meet their home appliance needs without
`
`having to pay a premium for efficient performance, as competition among manufacturers drive
`
`prices down.
`
`40. When implemented properly, residential and commercial energy efficiency
`
`standards are one of the most successful policies used by the federal government and states to
`
`save energy. For example, clothes washers and air conditioners manufactured today use,
`
`respectively, 70 percent and 50 percent less energy than models made in 1990 due to EPCA’s
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 14 of 58
`
`iterative process for strengthening efficiency standards. See DOE, Saving Energy and Money
`
`with Appliance and Equipment Standards in the United States Factsheet (Jan. 2017), available at
`
`https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/Appliance%20and%20Equipment%20Stand
`
`ards%20Fact%20Sheet-011917_0.pdf.
`
`41.
`
`Energy efficiency experts from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
`
`Economy (ACEEE) and the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) estimate that
`
`updated standards for the 25 products here at issue could, by 2050, save consumers and
`
`businesses more than a half trillion dollars in energy costs based on the resulting reductions in
`
`national energy consumption. See ASAP & ACEEE, “Next Generation Standards: How the
`
`National Energy Efficiency Standards Program Can Continue to Drive Energy, Economic, and
`
`Environmental Benefits” at Tables 5-6 (Aug. 2016), available at https://appliance-
`
`standards.org/sites/default/files/Next%20Gen%20Report%20Final_1.pdf.
`
`42.
`
`For example, ASAP and ACEEE calculate that, by 2035, updated efficiency
`
`standards for refrigerators and freezers could on an annual basis save consumers 17.1 terawatt-
`
`hours (TWh) of electricity, reduce electric bills by up to $2.4 billion, and prevent 8.8 million
`
`metric tons (MMT) of CO2 pollution. Updated clothes washer standards are estimated to save 2.6
`
`TWh of electricity, 21.7 trillion British thermal units (TBtu) of natural gas, $2.2 billion in
`
`reduced electric bills, and 2.5 MMT in reduced CO2 emissions. Similarly, updated clothes dryer
`
`standards would save 17.7 TWh of electricity, 16.3 TBtu of natural gas, $2.7 billion in reduced
`
`energy costs, and 9.9 MMT of CO2 emissions. And updated residential water heater standards
`
`could save up to 55.2 TWh of electricity, 169.7 TBtu of natural gas, $10 billion in reduced utility
`
`costs, and 37.4 MMT in reduced CO2 emissions. Id. at 11.
`
`43.
`
`Any long-term solution to our nation’s energy needs must both improve product
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 15 of 58
`
`affordability and reliability, and minimize emissions of pollutants such as greenhouse gases that
`
`contribute to climate change. According to the latest report of the United Nations’
`
`Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world must significantly reduce its
`
`greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades or risk ecological and social disaster. See IPCC,
`
`The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC (October 2018), available at
`
`http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/.
`
`44.
`
`The IPCC’s Special Report, authored and edited by 91 scientists from 40
`
`countries, synthesizes the findings of leading climate scientists and concludes that any increase
`
`in average global temperatures must be limited to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-
`
`industrial levels – .5 degree Celsius less than previously thought necessary to avert catastrophe.
`
`The IPCC further determined that “rapid and far-reaching” changes, including decarbonization of
`
`global energy systems and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to nearly half of 2010
`
`levels by 2030, will be required to meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold.
`
`45.
`
`DOE’s energy efficiency program can serve as a critical tool in our governments’
`
`efforts to address climate change. According to the “Energy Efficiency 2018” market report of
`
`the International Energy Agency (IEA) (available at https://www.iea.org/efficiency2018/),
`
`energy efficiency alone could account for nearly half of the CO2 emissions reductions needed for
`
`global sustainable development in 2040.
`
`DOE’s Statutory Obligation to Periodically Review and Update Energy Efficiency Standards
`
`46.
`
`The provisions and legislative history of EPCA over the last forty years
`
`demonstrate Congress’ consistent and growing interest in ensuring timely issuance of improved
`
`energy efficiency standards. In 1975, Congress enacted EPCA, Pub. L. No. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871
`
`(1975), as part of a “comprehensive national energy policy.” S. Rep. No. 516, 94th Congress, 1st
`
`Sess. 116 (1975) (conference report), reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1762, 1857. Two of
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 16 of 58
`
`EPCA’s major purposes are “to conserve energy supplies through energy conservation
`
`programs” and “to provide for improved energy efficiency of . . . major appliances and certain
`
`other consumer products.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 6201(4), (5).
`
`47.
`
`In 1978, as part of an overhaul of national energy policy, Congress enacted the
`
`National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), Pub. L. No. 95-619, 92 Stat. 3206 (1978),
`
`which amended EPCA to require that the newly-created DOE establish energy efficiency
`
`standards for thirteen categories of major residential appliances. 92 Stat. 3206, 3259, 3264.
`
`48.
`
`In 1987, after several plaintiff states and others successfully sued DOE for its
`
`failure to establish meaningful appliance energy efficiency standards, see NRDC v. Herrington,
`
`768 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1985), Congress passed the National Appliance Energy Conservation
`
`Act of 1987 (NAECA), Pub. L. No. 100-12, 101 Stat. 103 (1987). NAECA amended EPCA by
`
`establishing initial energy efficiency standards for certain household appliances and imposing
`
`upon DOE specific obligations and deadlines to amend and strengthen those standards. By doing
`
`so, Congress required DOE to periodically review its standards to ensure that efficiency levels
`
`are set at the maximum level that is technologically feasible and economically justified. 42
`
`U.S.C. § 6295(o)(2)(A). Congress’s adoption of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-
`
`486, §§ 121-28, 106 Stat. 2776, 2805-36 (1992), broadened DOE’s energy efficiency standards
`
`program to include additional products and timelines for action.
`
`49.
`
`In 2005, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), which
`
`directed DOE to develop a plan to expeditiously issue efficiency standards for those products for
`
`which it had not yet met the deadlines specified in EPCA. Pub. L. No. 109-58, §§ 135-36, 119
`
`Stat. 594, 624-45 (2005). Since then, EPCA’s energy efficiency provisions have undergone
`
`numerous other amendments that have expanded DOE’s obligations to prescribe, review and
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09362-UA Document 1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 17 of 58
`
`update energy efficiency standards for a broad range of residential and commercial products. See
`
`Pub. L. 110-140, §§ 301-413, 121 Stat. 1492, 1549-602 (2007); Pub. L. 111-360, 124 Stat. 4051-
`
`52 (2011); Pub. L. 112-210, 126 Stat. 1514 (2012).
`
`50.
`
`In its current form, EPCA authorizes DOE energy efficiency standards for over 60
`
`categories of common consumer and commercial products and industrial equipment.
`
`51.
`
`One of EPCA’s central features is the re