On September 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments in State of Mississippi et al. v. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), a closely watched case challenging DOE’s direct final rule (DFR) establishing new energy efficiency standards for conventional cooking products (the “Stove Efficiency Rule”). The case pits a coalition of Republican-led states against the federal government, raising questions not only about statutory interpretation under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), but also about executive power and regulatory consistency.
What is a Direct Final Rule?
In 2007, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which amended EPCA in part to allow DOE to issue DFRs. A DFR allows federal agencies to issue a final regulation without first proposing it, assuming the rule is unlikely to be controversial. A DFR includes a public comment period. If the public raises significant objections, a federal agency will withdraw the DFR; otherwise, assuming there are no significant objections, the DFR takes effect as scheduled. Under EPCA, DOE can proceed via DFR on energy efficiency standards where a “statement that is submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates)” is submitted. (See EPCA § 6295(p)(4)).
The Stove Efficiency Rule
The energy efficiency rule that DOE is defending is the culmination of an 11-year process that has proceeded in fits and starts, spanning four presidential administrations and numerous controversies. During the Obama administration, DOE began collecting data and information to inform amended efficiency standards for cooking products that had been in place since 2012. DOE first proposed new standards for these products in 2015, but the Trump administration declined to finalize those standards. In the final weeks of the first Trump administration, DOE proposed to withdraw its proposed standards upon a finding that they would not be economically justified and would not result in significant conservation of energy. The Biden administration declined to finalize the proposed withdrawal and, in 2023, instead published a new proposal for amendment standards, which met with significant opposition from manufacturers, who asserted that the standards would amount to a ban on gas-powered products. While that rulemaking was pending, a group of manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates negotiated and jointly proposed revised standards for DOE’s consideration. In February 2024, DOE issued a DFR adopting those new standards for gas and electric stoves, citing the joint statement negotiated by manufacturers and efficiency advocates. New York, Massachusetts, and California also supported the joint statement—although those states did not formally sign it. DOE had 120 days to withdraw the DFR if it received adverse comments that “provide[d] a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule.” In August 2024, DOE published a notice confirming the effective and compliance dates of the DFR and responding to adverse comments that were submitted regarding the DFR. DOE determined that the adverse comments did not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal.
Legal Challenge and Oral Arguments
Seven states (the “petitioners”)—Mississippi, Montana, Louisiana, Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah—filed suit challenging the Stove Efficiency Rule last year after submitting comments to DOE criticizing the rule before it took effect. In December of 2024, the Biden administration moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petition was untimely and the Court lacked jurisdiction. The Court ordered that the motion be carried with the case. In April of 2025, the Trump administration filed a brief defending the Stove Efficiency Rule and seeking dismissal of the petition. During oral arguments last week, petitioners argued that the rule was not based on a fair representation of stakeholders, noting that only a few states with similar policy perspectives supported the joint statement. The petitioners also maintained that their challenge was timely, despite filing eight months after the rule’s publication—arguing that the relevant trigger for the deadline was DOE’s August 2024 notice and not the February 2024 publication of the DFR. In response, DOE defended the rule and urged dismissal, asserting that the petition was untimely, that the notice was a courtesy and did not provide grounds for judicial review, and that the agency was not obligated to withdraw the rule solely based on receiving adverse comments if it determined those comments did not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal.
Political Dynamics and Broader Implications
The case has drawn attention for its unusual political dynamics: as B&D discussed with Reuters, the second Trump administration is now defending an efficiency rule that originated under the Biden administration, while simultaneously rolling back other appliance efficiency regulations, including those for dishwashers, washing machines, and lightbulbs. A decision upholding DOE’s rule will have implications for future DFRs, as the Department is claiming broad discretion to determine whether adverse comments provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal.
Opponents of federal appliance efficiency standards have had recent success bringing their challenges in the Fifth Circuit. As one example, when the Biden administration sought to roll back a Trump-era effort to exempt “short-cycle” appliances from regulation, the Fifth Circuit held that the Department had acted arbitrarily and capriciously and remanded the proposal to DOE for further rulemaking, and in doing so expressed broader skepticism regarding DOE’s authority to regulate the energy and/or water efficiency of certain appliances. A ruling against DOE in the stove efficiency rule litigation could constrain the agency’s use of DFRs and reshape whether and how negotiated standards are implemented.
A decision from the Fifth Circuit is expected later this fall. If the court vacates the rule, DOE may be required to restart the rulemaking process under traditional notice-and-comment procedures. Stakeholders in the appliance, energy, and environmental sectors should monitor the outcome closely, as it may influence future regulatory strategies and litigation risks.
[View source.]
