[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 240 (Monday, December 14, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80982-81058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26874]
[[Page 80981]]
Vol. 85
Monday,
No. 240
December 14, 2020
Part III
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer
Conventional Cooking Products; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 80982]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005]
RIN 1904-AD15
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of proposed determination and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including consumer
conventional cooking products. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department
of Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified,
and would result in significant energy savings. In this notification of
proposed determination (``NOPD''), DOE has initially determined that
amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products would not be economically justified and would not result in a
significant conservation of energy. DOE requests comment on this
proposed determination and the associated analyses and results.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on Thursday, January 28, 2021,
from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public Participation,''
for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Comments: Written comments and information are requested and will
be accepted on or before March 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2014-BT-
STD-0005, by any of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Email: [email protected]. Include the
docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005 in the subject line of the message.
(3) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if one is held), comments, and
other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for
information on how to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1943. Email:
[email protected].
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Conventional
Cooking Products
III. General Discussion
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
F. Other Issues
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
2. Technology Options
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Product Testing and Reverse Engineering
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
2. Efficiency Levels
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
b. Incremental Efficiency Levels
c. Relationship Between IAEC and Oven Cavity Volume
3. Incremental Manufacturing Production Cost Estimates
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
4. Consumer Utility
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
[[Page 80983]]
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Markup Scenarios
3. Discussion of Comments
a. Discount Rate
b. Changes in Test Procedure and Manufacturer Interviews
c. Other Comments
4. Manufacturer Interviews
a. Premium Products Tend To Be Less Efficient
b. Induction Cooking Products
c. Product Utility
d. Testing and Certification Burdens
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
C. Proposed Determination
1. Technological Feasibility
2. Significant Conservation of Energy
3. Economic Justification
4. Summary of Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed
Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
M. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
Title III, Part B \1\ of EPCA,\2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include consumer conventional cooking
products, and specifically conventional cooking tops \3\ and
conventional ovens,\4\ the subject of this NOPD. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(10))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (Oct. 23, 2018).
\3\ Conventional cooking top means a class of kitchen ranges and
ovens which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a
horizontal surface containing one or more surface units which
include either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. This
includes any conventional cooking top component of a combined
cooking product. (10 CFR 430.2)
\4\ Conventional oven means a class of kitchen ranges and ovens
which is a household cooking appliance consisting of one or more
compartments intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of
either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. It does not
include portable or countertop ovens which use electric resistance
heating for the cooking or heating of food and are designed for an
electrical supply of approximately 120 volts. This includes any
conventional oven(s) component of a combined cooking product. (10
CFR 430.2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to the EPCA requirement that not
later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notification of
determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended,
or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) Pursuant to the 6-year look-back
provision, DOE proposed energy conservation standards for conventional
cooking tops. 80 FR 33030 (June 10, 2015); 81 FR 60784 (Sep. 2, 2016).
Based on additional analysis and review of comments received, DOE is
publishing this proposed determination that establishing new and
amended standards for conventional cooking products, including
conventional cooking tops, is not needed because standards would not be
economically justified and would not result in a significant
conservation of energy.
For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed consumer conventional
cooking products, including those subject to standards specified in 10
CFR 430.32(j)(1)-(2).
DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of more energy
efficient consumer conventional cooking products. For those consumer
conventional cooking products for which DOE determined higher standards
to be technologically feasible, DOE estimated energy savings that would
result from potential energy conservation standards by conducting a
national impacts analysis (``NIA''). DOE then evaluated whether higher
standards would be economically justified pursuant to the seven factors
specified in EPCA.
Based on the results of the analyses, summarized in section V of
this document, DOE has tentatively determined that current standards
for consumer conventional cooking products do not need to be amended.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the
historical background relevant to the establishment of standards for
consumer conventional cooking products.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include consumer
conventional cooking products, and specifically consumer conventional
cooking tops and conventional ovens, the subject of this document. (42
U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for
these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)), and directs DOE to conduct
future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42
U.S.C. 6295(h)(2))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered
[[Page 80984]]
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers
of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the
basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the
applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when
making representations to the public regarding the energy use or
efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the
products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for consumer conventional cooking
products were established in title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix I (``appendix I'').
However, as discussed further in section III.B of this document, the
test procedures for the conventional cooking products that are the
subject of this proposed determination have been withdrawn.
Federal energy conservation standards for covered products
generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy
conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c))
DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular
State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other
provisions set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including consumer conventional
cooking products. In prescribing new or amended standards for covered
products DOE must consider, among other things, the opportunity for
energy savings, as well as the potential costs to consumers, and
impacts on consumer choice. Any new or amended standard for a covered
product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard
that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE
determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving
comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the
standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable,
water) savings likely to result directly from imposition of the
standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
covered products likely to result from imposition of the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
imposition of the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'')
considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is
economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost
to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended
or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4))
EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy
conservation standard for type or class of covered product that has two
or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level than
that which applies generally to such type or class of products for any
group of covered products that have the same function or intended use
if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products
within such type (or class), or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(2))
Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and
off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) Although DOE currently does not have test
procedures for consumer conventional cooking products,\5\ previous
versions of appendix I addressed standby mode and off mode energy use.
In the absence of a test procedure, in this analysis DOE considers
energy use as measured under the previous test procedure appendix I in
its determination of whether energy conservation standards need to be
amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 85 FR 50757 (August 18, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE must periodically review its already established energy
conservation standards for a covered product no later than 6 years from
the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year look-back provision
requires that DOE publish either a determination that standards do not
need to be amended or a NOPR, including new proposed standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
EPCA further provides that, not later than 3 years after the issuance
of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish
either a notification of determination that standards for the
[[Page 80985]]
product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on
which a determination is based publicly available and provide an
opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
A determination that amended standards are not needed must be based
on consideration of whether amended standards will result in
significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and
are cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
Additionally, as discussed above, any new or amended energy
conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary for any type (or
class) of covered product shall be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency which the Secretary determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2(A) Among the factors DOE considers in evaluating whether a
proposed level is economically justified includes whether the proposed
standard at that level is cost effective, as defined under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an
evaluation of cost-effectiveness requires DOE to consider savings in
operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered
products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price,
initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that
are likely to result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))
DOE is publishing this NOPD in satisfaction of the requirements
under EPCA.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on April 8, 2009 (``April 2009 Final
Rule''), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking products to prohibit constant burning
pilots for all gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking products both
with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on or after
April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. DOE's regulations, codified at 10 CFR
430.2, define conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens as
categories of cooking products. As noted in the April 2009 Final Rule,
DOE specified conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens as
separate categories of cooking products, and noted that any cooking top
or oven standard would apply to the individual components of a
conventional range. 74 FR 16040, 16053.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Conventional Cooking
Products
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (``NAECA''),
Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for
gas cooking products, requiring gas ranges and ovens with an electrical
supply cord that are manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, not to
be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1))
NAECA also directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to
determine if more stringent or additional standards were justified for
kitchen ranges and ovens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2))
DOE undertook the first cycle of these rulemakings and published a
final rule on September 8, 1998, which found that no standards were
justified for conventional electric cooking products at that time. 63
FR 48038. In addition, partially due to the difficulty of conclusively
demonstrating at that time that elimination of standing pilots for
conventional gas cooking products without an electrical supply cord was
economically justified, DOE did not include amended standards for
conventional gas cooking products in the final rule. 63 FR 48038,
48039-48040. For the second cycle of rulemakings, DOE published the
April 2009 Final Rule amending the energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking products to prohibit constant burning
pilots for all gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking products both
with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on or after
April 9, 2012. DOE decided to not adopt energy conservation standards
pertaining to the cooking efficiency of conventional electric cooking
products because it determined that such standards would not be
technologically feasible and economically justified at that time. 74 FR
16040, 16085.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As part of the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE decided not to
adopt energy conservation standards pertaining to the cooking
efficiency of microwave ovens. DOE also published a final rule on
June 17, 2013 adopting energy conservation standards for microwave
oven standby mode and off mode. 78 FR 36316. DOE is not considering
energy conservation standards for microwave ovens as part of this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years after the
issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
publish a NOPR proposing new standards or a notification of
determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) On February 12, 2014, DOE published a request
for information (``RFI'') notice (the ``February 2014 RFI'') to
initiate the mandatory review process imposed by EPCA. 79 FR 8337. As
part of the RFI, DOE sought input from the public to assist with its
determination on whether new or amended standards pertaining to
consumer conventional cooking products are warranted. 79 FR 8337, 8339.
In making this determination, DOE must evaluate whether new or amended
standards would (1) yield a significant savings in energy use and (2)
be both technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
On June 10, 2015, DOE published a NOPR (the ``June 2015 NOPR'')
proposing new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer
conventional ovens. 80 FR 33030. The June 2015 NOPR also announced that
a public meeting would be held on July 14, 2015 at DOE headquarters in
Washington, DC At this meeting, DOE presented the methodologies and
results of the analyses set forth in the NOPR, and interested parties
that participated in the public meeting discussed a variety of topics.
As part of the June 2015 NOPR, DOE also noted that it was deferring its
decision regarding whether to adopt amended energy conservation
standards for conventional cooking tops, pending further study. 80 FR
33030, 33038-33040.
Prior to the June 2015 NOPR, DOE issued two notices requesting
comment on the test procedures for cooking products. In both the test
procedure NOPR published on January 30, 2013 (78 FR 6232, the ``January
2013 TP NOPR'') and the supplemental test procedure NOPR published on
December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71894, the ``December 2014 TP SNOPR''), DOE
proposed amendments to the cooking products test procedure in appendix
I that would allow for the testing of active mode energy consumption of
induction cooking tops. After reviewing public comments on the December
2014 TP SNOPR, conducting further discussions with manufacturers, and
performing additional analyses, DOE decided that further study was
required before an updated cooking top test procedure could be
established that produces test results which measure energy use during
a representative average use cycle for all types of cooking tops, is
repeatable and reproducible, and is not unduly burdensome to conduct.
80 FR 37954 (July 2, 2015) (``July 2015 TP Final Rule''). Test
procedures for cooking tops were again proposed, as
[[Page 80986]]
discussed in section III.B of this document, in an SNOPR on August 22,
2016. (81 FR 57374, the ``August 2016 TP SNOPR''). Subsequently a final
rule was published on December 16, 2016 (the ``December 2016 TP Final
Rule'') adopting amended test procedures for conventional cooking tops
that include, among other things, test methods for induction cooking
tops and gas cooking tops with high burner input rates. 81 FR 91418.
This rule was subsequently withdrawn on August 18, 2020 as a result of
a petition from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
(``AHAM''). As discussed in more detail in section III.B of this
document, DOE withdrew the December 2016 TP Final Rule because it could
not be certain that the results of the conventional cooking tops test
procedure were accurate.
On September 2, 2016, prior to the now withdrawn test procedure
amendments being adopted in the December 2016 TP Final Rule, DOE
published in the Federal Register an SNOPR (the ``September 2016
SNOPR'') proposing new and amended energy conservation standards for
conventional cooking tops based on the amendments to the test procedure
as proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR. 81 FR 60784. In the September
2016 SNOPR, DOE also revised its proposal from the June 2015 NOPR for
conventional ovens from a performance-based standard to a prescriptive
standard given that DOE had proposed to repeal the test procedure for
conventional ovens in the August 2016 TP SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 60793-
60794. (The repeal of the test procedure for conventional ovens is
discussed in greater detail in section III.B of this document.) In
response to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE received a number of comments
from interested parties and considered these comments in preparing this
NOPD. The commenters are summarized in Table II-1. Relevant comments,
and DOE's responses, are provided in the appropriate sections of this
document.
[[Page 80987]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.000
[[Page 80988]]
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to consider
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005). The
references are arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposed determination after considering oral
and written comments, data, and information from interested parties
that represent a variety of interests. This NOPD addresses issues
raised by these commenters.
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
As discussed in section II.A of this document, 42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(10) of EPCA covers kitchen ranges and ovens, or ``cooking
products.'' DOE's regulations define ``cooking products'' as consumer
products that are used as the major household cooking appliances. They
are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or more of
the following sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy.
Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing one or
more surface units \8\ and/or one or more heating compartments. 10 CFR
430.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The term surface unit refers to burners for gas cooking tops
and electric resistance heating elements or inductive heating
elements for electric cooking tops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE defines a combined cooking product as a household cooking
appliance that combines a conventional cooking top and/or conventional
oven with other appliance functionality, which may or may not include
another cooking product. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I) In
this analysis, DOE is not treating combined cooking products as a
distinct product category and is not basing its product classes on such
a category. Instead, DOE is evaluating energy conservation standards
for conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens separately.
Because combined cooking products consist, in part, of a cooking top
and/or oven, the cooking top and oven standards would continue to apply
to the individual components of the combined cooking product.
As part of the 2009 standards rulemaking for consumer conventional
cooking products, DOE did not consider energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional gas cooking products with higher burner input
rates, including products marketed as ``commercial-style'' or
``professional-style,'' due to a lack of available data for determining
efficiency characteristics of those products. DOE considered such
products to be gas cooking tops with burner input rates greater than
14,000 British thermal units per hour (``Btu/h'') and gas ovens with
burner input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h. 74 FR 16040, 16054 (Apr.
8, 2009); 72 FR 64432, 64444-64445 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE also stated
that the DOE cooking products test procedures at that time may not
adequately measure performance of gas cooking tops and ovens with
higher burner input rates. 72 FR 64432, 64444-64445 (Nov. 15, 2007).
As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated that it tentatively
planned to consider energy conservation standards for all consumer
conventional cooking products, including commercial-style gas cooking
products with higher burner input rates. In addition, DOE stated that
it may consider developing test procedures for these products and
determine whether separate product classes are warranted. 79 FR 8337,
8340 (Feb. 12, 2014).
As discussed in section III.B of this document, DOE amended the
conventional cooking top test procedure in appendix I to, in part,
measure the energy use of commercial-style gas cooking tops with high
burner input rates. See 81 FR 91418 (Dec. 16, 2016). However, on August
18, 2020, as a result of a petition from AHAM and data received in
response to that petition, DOE withdrew the conventional cooking top
test procedure in appendix I after determining that it was not
representative of energy use or efficiency during an average use cycle
and was overly burdensome to conduct. 85 FR 50757 (``August 2020 TP
Final Rule''). DOE also repealed the conventional oven test procedure
in the December 2016 TP Final Rule. See 81 FR 91418 (Dec. 16, 2016). In
the absence of Federal test procedures to measure the energy use or
energy efficiency of conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens,
DOE is evaluating prescriptive design requirements for the control
system of conventional electric smooth element cooking tops and
conventional ovens, including commercial-style ovens with higher burner
input rates. DOE would maintain the existing prescriptive design
requirements for all conventional gas cooking products, noting that the
current definitions for ``conventional cooking top'' and ``conventional
oven'' in 10 CFR 430.2 already cover commercial-style gas cooking
products with higher burner input rates, as these products are
household cooking appliances with surface units or compartments
intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of a gas flame. As
discussed in section IV.A.1 of this document, DOE is not proposing a
separate product class for gas cooking tops and ovens with higher
burner input rates that are marketed as ``commercial-style'' and, as a
result, DOE is not proposing separate definitions for these products.
B. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(s) and 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) DOE will finalize a test procedure
establishing methodologies used to evaluate proposed energy
conservation standards at least 180 days prior to publication of a NOPR
proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. Section 8(d) of
appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (``Process Rule'').
DOE established test procedures in a final rule published in the
Federal Register on May 10, 1978. 43 FR 20108, 20120-20128. DOE revised
its test procedures for cooking products to more accurately measure
their efficiency and energy use, and published the revisions as a final
rule in 1997. 62 FR 51976 (Oct. 3, 1997). These test procedure
amendments included: (1) A reduction in the annual useful cooking
energy; (2) a reduction in the number of self-clean oven cycles per
year; and (3) incorporation of portions of International
Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard 705-1988, ``Methods for
measuring the performance of microwave ovens for household and similar
purposes,'' and Amendment 2-1993 for the testing of
[[Page 80989]]
microwave ovens. Id. The test procedures for consumer conventional
cooking products established provisions for determining estimated
annual operating cost, cooking efficiency (defined as the ratio of
cooking energy output to cooking energy input), and energy factor
(defined as the ratio of annual useful cooking energy output to total
annual energy input). 10 CFR 430.23(i); appendix I. These provisions
for consumer conventional cooking products were not used for compliance
with any energy conservation standards because the standards to date
have been design requirements; in addition, there is no EnergyGuide \9\
labeling program for cooking products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For more information on the EnergyGuide labeling program,
see: www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/16cfr305_00.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE subsequently conducted a rulemaking to address standby and off
mode energy consumption, as well as certain active mode (i.e., fan-only
mode) testing provisions, for consumer conventional cooking products.
DOE published a final rule on October 31, 2012 (77 FR 65942, the
``October 2012 TP Final Rule''), adopting standby and off mode
provisions that satisfied the EPCA requirement that DOE include
measures of standby mode and off mode power in its test procedures for
residential products, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A))
The January 2013 TP NOPR proposed amendments to appendix I that
would allow for testing the active mode energy consumption of induction
cooking products; i.e., conventional cooking tops equipped with
induction heating technology for one or more surface units on the
cooking top. DOE proposed to incorporate induction cooking tops by
amending the definition of ``conventional cooking top'' to include
induction heating technology. Furthermore, DOE proposed to require for
all cooking tops the use of test equipment compatible with induction
technology. Specifically, DOE proposed to replace the solid aluminum
test blocks specified at that time in the test procedure for cooking
tops with hybrid test blocks comprising two separate pieces: an
aluminum body and a stainless-steel base. 78 FR 6232, 6234 (Jan. 30,
2013).
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE modified its proposal from the
January 2013 TP NOPR in response to comments from interested parties to
specify different test equipment that would allow for measuring the
energy efficiency of induction cooking tops, and would include an
additional test block size for electric surface units with large
diameters (both induction and electric resistance). 79 FR 71894. In
addition, DOE proposed methods to test non-circular electric surface
units, electric surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones,
and full-surface induction cooking tops. Id. In the December 2014 TP
SNOPR, DOE also proposed amendments to add a larger test block size to
test gas cooking top burners with higher input rates. Id.
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed methods for
measuring conventional oven volume, clarification that the existing
oven test block must be used to test all ovens regardless of input
rate, and a method to measure the energy consumption and efficiency of
conventional ovens equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR 71894 (Dec.
3, 2014). DOE published the July 2015 TP Final Rule adopting the test
procedure amendments discussed above for conventional ovens only. 80 FR
37954.
As discussed in the June 2015 NOPR for conventional ovens, DOE
received a significant number of comments raising issues with the
repeatability and reproducibility of the proposed hybrid test block
test method for cooking tops in response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR
and in separate interviews conducted with consumer conventional cooking
product manufacturers in February and March of 2015. 80 FR 33030,
33039-33040 (June 10, 2015). A number of manufacturers that produce and
sell products in Europe supported the use of a water-heating test
method and harmonization with IEC Standard 60350-2 Edition 2,
``Household electric appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Method for measuring
performance'' \10\ (``IEC Standard 60350-2'') for measuring the energy
consumption of electric cooking tops. These manufacturers stated that
the test methods in IEC Standard 60350-2 are compatible with all
electric cooking top types, specify additional cookware diameters to
account for the variety of surface unit sizes on the market, and use
test loads that represent real-world cooking top loads. Efficiency
advocates also recommended that DOE require water-heating test methods
to produce a measure of cooking efficiency for conventional cooking
tops that is more representative of actual cooking performance than the
hybrid test block method. 80 FR 33030, 33039-33040 (June 10, 2015). For
these reasons, DOE decided to defer its decision regarding adoption of
energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops until a
representative, repeatable and reproducible test method for cooking
tops was finalized. 80 FR 33030, 33040 (June 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Hob is the British English term for cooking top.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE published the August 2016 TP SNOPR that proposed amendments to
the test procedures for conventional cooking tops. Given the feedback
from interested parties discussed above and based on the additional
testing and analysis conducted for the test procedure rulemaking, in
the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE withdrew its proposal for testing
conventional cooking tops with a hybrid test block. Instead, DOE
proposed to amend its test procedure to incorporate by reference the
relevant sections of European Standard EN 60350-2:2013 ``Household
electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs--Methods for measuring
performance'' \11\ (``EN 60350-2:2013''), which provide a water-heating
test method to measure the energy consumption of electric cooking tops.
The test method specifies the quantity of water to be heated in a
standardized test vessel whose size is selected based on the diameter
of the surface unit under test. The test vessels specified in EN 60350-
2:2013 are compatible with all cooking top technologies and surface
unit diameters available on the U.S. market. 81 FR 57374, 57381-57384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The test methods in EN 60350-2:2013 are based on the same
test methods in the draft version of IEC 60350-2 available at the
time of the December 2016 TP Final Rule. As noted in that final
rule, based on the few comments received during the development of
the draft, DOE expected that the IEC procedure, once finalized,
would retain the same basic test method as contained in EN 60350-
2:2013. 81 FR 91418, 91421 (Dec. 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also proposed to extend the test methods provided in EN 60530-
2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of gas cooking tops by
correlating test equipment diameter to burner input rate, including
input rates that exceed 14,000 Btu/h. 81 FR 57374, 57385-57386. In
addition, DOE also proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to include
methods for both electric and gas cooking tops to calculate the annual
energy consumption (``AEC'') and integrated annual energy consumption
(``IAEC'') to account for the proposed water-heating test method. 81 FR
57374, 57387-57388.
In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to repeal the
conventional oven test procedure. DOE determined that the conventional
oven test procedure may not accurately represent consumer use as it
favors conventional ovens with low thermal mass and does not capture
cooking performance-related benefits due to increased thermal mass of
the oven cavity. 81 FR 57374, 57378-57379.
[[Page 80990]]
For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE evaluated its proposed energy
conservation standards for conventional cooking tops based on the
proposed cooking top test procedure discussed above. 81 FR 60784, 60797
(Sept. 2, 2016). For conventional ovens, due to the uncertainties in
analyzing a performance-based standard using oven testing provisions
that DOE proposed to remove from the test procedure, as discussed
above, DOE proposed in the September 2016 SNOPR prescriptive design
requirements for the control system of conventional ovens. 81 FR 60784,
60794.
AHAM, AGA and APGA opposed consideration of proposed standards in
the absence of a final test procedure, stating that the technological
feasibility and economic justification of proposed standards can only
be evaluated with a finalized test procedure. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 1-2;
AHAM, No. 64 at p. 3; AGA and APGA, No. 68 at p. 2) AHAM, AGA and APGA
asserted that 42 U.S.C. 6295(r) requires that test procedures are
finalized in a sufficient period of time before energy conservation
standards are proposed. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 1-2; AHAM, No. 64 at p. 3;
AGA and APGA, No. 68 at p. 2) AHAM, AGA and APGA also argued that DOE
has not followed section 7 of the then-current Process Improvement
Rule, which stated that needed modifications to test procedures will be
identified in consultation with experts and interested parties early in
the screening stage of the standards development process and any
necessary modifications will be proposed before issuance of an advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking (``ANOPR'') in the standards process. In
addition, these commenters stated that the then-current Process
Improvement Rule specified that final modified test procedures will be
issued prior to the NOPR on proposed standards. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 2-
3; AGA and APGA, No. 68 at p. 2)
AHAM, AGA and APGA asserted that, even with the 30-day extension,
the comment period for the September 2016 SNOPR was inadequate for
industry to analyze and provide meaningful comment on the impacts of
the proposed standards given the uncertainty in the test procedure.
AHAM added that it was particularly difficult to comment on the
proposed standards because manufacturers do not regularly conduct
energy tests because there is not a standard that requires them to do
so. (AHAM, No. 52 at pp. 3-4; AHAM, No. 64 at p. 3; AGA and APGA, No.
68 at pp. 1-2)
AHAM reiterated the list of issues with the test procedure
presented in its comments on the August 2016 TP SNOPR \12\ concerning
the repeatability and reproducibility of tests results. AHAM urged DOE
to issue a notice of data availability and/or supplemental proposed
test procedure with a 30- to 60-day comment period to address AHAM's
comments on the test procedure. AHAM added that DOE should finalize the
test procedure before proposing standards, and provide 180 days after
finalizing the test procedure before closing the comment period on a
proposed standard to provide sufficient time for manufacturers to test
enough models to evaluate the potential impact of proposed standards.
AHAM stated that if DOE does not, however, issue an additional SNOPR on
the proposed standard, DOE should at minimum explain how any additional
changes to the test procedure impact the proposed standards and provide
interested parties with an additional 60 days to comment on the
proposed standards. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 5-6; AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 1, 3-
4) AHAM also commented that if DOE proceeds with standards for cooking
tops using the test procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE
should adjust the tolerance for enforcement from 5 percent to 20
percent, consistent with the variation in test results observed in
AHAM's round robin test program. (AHAM, No 64 at p. 21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ AHAM's comment on the August 2016 TP SNOPR is available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013-0030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Zero similarly commented that the proposed test procedure
produces significant variation in test results and, thus, it is not
feasible to adopt standards for conventional cooking tops. Sub-Zero
commented that DOE should work with industry to develop a test
procedure that produces repeatable and reproducible results. (Sub-Zero,
No. 66 at p. 1) AGA and APGA also commented that adding what it stated
is a complicated and unproven test procedure for gas cooking tops does
not appear to be warranted for the testing and verification burden that
would be placed on the industry, as well as the consumers that will pay
for the added cost of testing and compliance. (AGA and APGA, No. 68 at
p. 3)
On December 16, 2016, DOE published a final rule repealing the test
procedures for conventional ovens for the reasons discussed above, and
adopting the test procedure amendments for conventional cooking tops
proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, with the following modifications:
Aligning the test methods for electric surface units with
flexible concentric cooking zones (also referred to as multi-ring
surface units) with the provisions in EN 60350-2:2013; \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ EN 60350-2:2013 requires testing of the largest measured
diameter of multi-ring surface units only, unless an additional test
vessel category is needed to meet the test vessel selection
requirements in EN 60350-2:2013. In that case, one of the smaller-
diameter settings of the multi-ring surface unit may be tested if it
fulfills the test vessel category requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarifying the simmering temperature requirements,
temperature sensor requirements, and surface unit diameter measurement;
and
Maintaining the existing installation requirements in
appendix I. 81 FR 91418.
The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.,
provides among other things, that ``[e]ach agency shall give an
interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of a rule.'' (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) DOE received a petition from AHAM
requesting that DOE reconsider its December 2016 TP Final Rule. In its
petition, AHAM requested that DOE undertake a rulemaking to withdraw
the test procedure for conventional cooking tops, while maintaining the
repeal of the oven test procedure that was part of the Final Rule. In
the interim, AHAM sought an immediate stay of the effectiveness of the
December 2016 TP Final Rule, including the requirement that
manufacturers use the final test procedure to make energy-related
claims. In its petition, AHAM claimed that its analyses showed that the
test procedure is not representative for gas cooking tops and, for gas
and electric cooking tops, has such a high level of variation it will
not produce accurate results for certification and enforcement purposes
and will not assist consumers in making purchasing decisions based on
energy efficiency. DOE published AHAM's petition on April 25, 2018, and
requested comments and information on whether DOE should undertake a
rulemaking to consider the proposal contained in the petition. 80 FR
17944.
On August 9, 2019, DOE published a NOPR (``the August 2019 TP
NOPR'') proposing to withdraw the test procedure for conventional
cooking tops after evaluating new information and data produced by AHAM
and other interested parties that suggested that the test procedure
yields inconsistent results that are indicative of the test not being
representative of energy use or efficiency during an average use cycle.
As such, DOE determined that it would be unduly burdensome to subject
those manufacturers seeking to make
[[Page 80991]]
representations as to the efficiency of their products to the
requirement to conduct such tests while DOE investigated the issues
presented. 84 FR 39211.
On August 18, 2020, DOE published the August 2020 TP Final Rule
withdrawing the test procedure for conventional cooking tops. 85 FR
50757. Testing conducted by DOE and outside parties using the test
procedure yielded inconsistent results. 85 FR 50757, 50763. DOE had not
identified the cause of the inconsistencies, and noted that its data to
date is limited. Id. DOE concluded, therefore, that the test procedure
was not representative of energy use or efficiency during an average
use cycle. Id. DOE also determined that it would be unduly burdensome
to leave the test procedure in place and require cooking top tests to
be conducted using that test method without further study to resolve
those inconsistencies. Id.
Under EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must
include, where applicable, test procedures prescribed in accordance
with the test procedure provisions of the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) As
discussed previously, DOE repealed the conventional cooking top and
conventional oven test procedures and is evaluating new prescriptive
design requirements for the control system of conventional ovens and
conventional electric smooth cooking tops, while proposing to maintain
the existing prescriptive design requirements for conventional gas
ovens and conventional gas cooking tops. As a result, the prescriptive
design requirements would not require manufacturers to test using the
DOE test procedure for conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens
to certify products.
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation
standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information
gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that
could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the
subject of the determination. As the first step in such an analysis,
DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in
consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested
parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving
efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies
incorporated in commercially available products or in working
prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(c)(3)(i) and
7(b)(1) of the Process Rule.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies.
Sections 6(c)(3)(ii)-(iv) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section
IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis
for consumer conventional cooking products, particularly the designs
DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for
the standards considered in this proposed determination. For further
details on the screening analysis for this proposed determination, see
chapter 4 of the technical support document (``TSD'') \14\ for this
NOPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
As when DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or
class of covered product, in this analysis it must determine the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy
use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined
the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in
energy efficiency for consumer conventional cooking products, using the
design parameters for the most efficient products available on the
market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE
determined for this analysis are described in section IV.C of this
proposed determination and in chapter 5 of the TSD for this NOPD.
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to consumer conventional cooking
products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of
compliance with the potential standards (2023-2052).\15\ The savings
are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the
previous 30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable
to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each
standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case
represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the
market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of new or
amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each
product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPD are described in
section V.A of this document. DOE also presents a sensitivity
analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE used its NIA spreadsheet models to estimate national energy
savings (``NES'') from potential new or amended standards for consumer
conventional cooking products. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in
section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of
site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports NES in
terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy
that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural
gas, the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site
energy savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of full-fuel-cycle
(``FFC'') energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed
in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.\16\ DOE's
approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of
the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more
information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Significance of Savings
In determining whether amended standards are needed, DOE must
consider whether such standards will result in significant conservation
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)) The term ``significant'' is not
defined in EPCA. DOE has established a significance threshold for
energy savings. Section 6(b) of the now-current Process Rule. In
evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE conducts a two-step
approach that considers both an absolute site energy savings threshold
and a threshold that is
[[Page 80992]]
a percent reduction in the covered product energy use. Id. DOE first
evaluates the projected energy savings from a max-tech standard over a
30-year period against a 0.3 quadrillion British thermal units
(``quads'') of site energy threshold. Section 6(b)(2) of the now-
current Process Rule. If the 0.3 quads-threshold is not met, DOE then
compares the max-tech savings to the total energy usage of the covered
equipment to calculate a percentage reduction in energy usage. Section
6(b)(3) of the Process Rule. If this comparison does not yield a
reduction in site energy use of at least 10 percent over a 30-year
period, DOE proposes that no significant energy savings would likely
result from setting new or amended standards. Section 6(b)(4) of the
now-current Process Rule. The two-step approach allows DOE to ascertain
whether a potential standard satisfies EPCA's significant energy
savings requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) to ensure that DOE
avoids setting a standard that ``will not result in significant
conservation of energy.''
EPCA defines ``energy efficiency'' as the ratio of the useful
output of services from a consumer product to the energy use of such
product, measured according to the Federal test procedures. (42 U.S.C.
6291(5), emphasis added) EPCA defines ``energy use'' as the quantity of
energy directly consumed by a consumer product at point of use, as
measured by the Federal test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) Further,
EPCA uses a household energy consumption metric as a threshold for
setting standards for new covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1))
Given this context, DOE relies on site energy as the appropriate metric
for evaluating the significance of energy savings.
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted above, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven
factors in this proposed determination.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of potential new or amended standards on
manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA''),
as discussed in section IV.I of this document. DOE first uses an annual
cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step
includes both a short-term assessment--based on the cost and capital
requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and
when entities must comply with the regulation--and a long-term
assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed
include (1) the industry net present value (``INPV''), which values the
industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by
year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of
impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on
different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small
manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic
manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the
potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital
investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of
various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in life-cycle cost (``LCC'') and simple payback period
(``PBP'') associated with new or amended standards. These measures are
discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the
aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value (``NPV'')
of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP
analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating cost (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the first full year of compliance with
new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As
discussed in section IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes, and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data
available to DOE, the standards considered in this document would not
reduce the utility or performance of consumer conventional cooking
products.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result
from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the
Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule,
together with an analysis of the
[[Page 80993]]
nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) In the
event DOE were to propose amended standards, DOE would transmit a copy
of the proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this
issue. DOE would then publish and respond to the Attorney General's
determination in the final rule. Currently, DOE is not proposing to
amend the energy conservation standards for consumer conventional
cooking products so there is no proposed rule to submit to the Attorney
General for review.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
In evaluating the need for national energy conservation, DOE
expects that energy savings from amended standards would likely provide
improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy
system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in
reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's
electricity system. Energy savings from amended standards also would
likely result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced
emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases primarily associated
with fossil-fuel based energy production. Consistent with its past
approach,\17\ because DOE has initially concluded amended standards for
consumer conventional cooking products would not result in significant
energy savings and would not be economically justified, DOE did not
conduct a utility impact analysis or emissions analysis for this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 81 FR 71325 (Oct. 17, 2016); see also 84 FR 17626 (Dec.
27, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP
analyses generate values used to calculate the effect that proposed
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In
addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation
is discussed in section IV.F of this document.
F. Other Issues
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, the SoCal IOUs and the
Joint Commenters supported performance-based standards for conventional
cooking tops, stating that the August 2016 TP SNOPR proposed test
methods to fully capture energy consumption for these products. (SoCal
IOUs, No. 67 at p. 2; Joint Commenters, No. 70 at p. 1) Due to the
repeal of the testing requirements for conventional cooking tops in the
August 2020 TP Final Rule, DOE did not evaluate performance-based
standards in this document.
The Joint Commenters opposed prescriptive standards for the power
supply of conventional cooking tops. The Joint Commenters stated that
while switch-mode power supplies (``SMPS'') are generally more
efficient than linear power supplies, the standby power consumption of
cooking tops with SMPS is not necessarily lower than that of cooking
tops with linear power supplies based on DOE's test sample. The Joint
Commenters also commented that a prescriptive standard that only
required cooking tops to be equipped with a SMPS would eliminate
significant energy savings from the proposed performance-based standard
level that included energy savings from the automatic power-down design
option for electric smooth cooking tops. (Joint Commenters, No. 70 at
p. 2)
GE commented that for the proposed standard for electric smooth
cooking tops, which corresponds to the automatic power-down technology
option, the estimated standby power of 0.25 Watts (``W'') is
unrepresentative of products available on the market and that none of
its models would meet this level. AHAM and GE commented that DOE based
the reduction in standby power consumption on a stand-alone cooking
top, not a combined cooking product such as a range. AHAM and GE added
that, according to the test procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP
SNOPR, combined cooking products must include standby energy from the
other components. According to AHAM and GE, the energy savings
estimated by DOE are not achievable when accounting for the standby
power consumption of a combined cooking product and would result in a
loss of consumer utility because manufacturers would have to remove the
clock function to meet the low standby power consumption levels. (AHAM,
No. 64 at p. 10; GE, No. 72 at p. 2)
As discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD for this NOPD, DOE observed in
its testing that the standby power for electric smooth cooking tops
without an automatic power-down feature was similar among the units in
its test sample, which included both stand-alone cooking tops and
cooking tops in combined cooking products. Furthermore, DOE observed an
electric smooth cooking top that implements an automatic power-down
feature. The automatic power-down design option achieves very low
standby power levels (approximately 0.25 W) by turning off most of the
power-consuming components on the control board once a period of user
inactivity has elapsed. DOE determined through product teardowns that
the power supply requirements for all of the electric smooth cooking
tops in its test sample are similar, including those in the unit that
implements the automatic power-down feature. As a result, DOE
identified no technical barrier to implementing this design option to
power down most of the power-consuming components on the control board
in any of its sample units and, therefore, concludes that similar
levels of energy savings due to standby power improvements can be
achieved for all electric smooth cooking tops. However, DOE also
recognizes that a standby power level associated with the automatic
power-down technology option may not be achievable while powering the
continuous clock display typically used in combined cooking products,
such as ranges. Therefore, as discussed in section V.A of this
document, DOE evaluated prescriptive design standards in this NOPD for
electric smooth cooking tops that would allow for a continuous clock
display,
[[Page 80994]]
and accordingly, would not require the elimination of clocks from
products.
AGA and APGA commented that the proposed standards in the September
2016 SNOPR for conventional gas cooking tops and ovens would produce
little real energy savings. In particular, AGA and APGA opposed DOE's
proposal for gas cooking tops to eliminate the current prescriptive
standard prohibiting constant burning pilot lights and replace it with
a performance standard because the test procedure had not yet been
finalized or vetted by industry. AGA and APGA asserted that the limited
testing conducted by DOE was not adequate given the concerns about the
test procedure. (AGA and APGA, No. 68 at pp. 3, 4)
The SoCal IOUs supported DOE's analysis and proposed standards,
with the exception of those for gas cooking tops. The SoCal IOUs stated
that under TSL 2, 26.1 percent of gas cooking top consumers would be
adversely impacted and have an average payback period of 19.7 years.
The SoCal IOUs recommended adopting TSL 2, with the exception of
specifying standards at the baseline efficiency level for gas cooking
tops. According to the SoCal IOUs, this approach would result in a
fractional reduction in national energy savings of 0.06 quads. (SoCal
IOUs, No. 67 at p. 3)
As discussed in section III.B of this document, DOE withdrew the
testing provisions for conventional cooking tops in the August 2020 TP
Final Rule and, therefore, is not evaluating performance standards for
conventional cooking tops, including gas cooking tops, in this NOPD.
Spire commented that the higher efficiency of induction cooking
tops, being technologically feasible and economically justified,
obligates DOE to mandate their use for electric cooking products.
(Spire, No. 61 at p. 4) As discussed in section V.C.3 of this document,
DOE has initially determined that the electric smooth cooking top
efficiency level associated with induction heating is not economically
justified.
AHAM stated that, based on its comments regarding improved contact
conductance (discussed in section IV.A.2.a of this document), the
additional testing conducted by AHAM members (discussed in section
IV.C.1.a of this document), and the estimated 19 percent of consumers
that would experience a net cost at DOE's proposed standard level,
DOE's proposed standard for electric coil cooking tops would not
achieve actual energy savings in the field and could eliminate these
products from the market. AHAM opposed standards for electric coil
cooking tops and recommended that DOE maintain the ``no standard''
standard for this product class. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 20) As discussed
in section IV.A.2.a of this document, DOE is no longer considering
improved contact conductance as a technology option. In addition, as
discussed in section IV.C.2 of this document, DOE updated its
efficiency levels to account for the additional data submitted by AHAM.
Based on these revisions to the analysis for this NOPD, DOE is not
evaluating standards for electric coil cooking tops, as discussed in
section IV.C.2.b of this document.
The CA IOUs submitted a test report from their testing of gas and
electric ovens. The CA IOUs noted that their test sample included a
range of manufacturers, cavity sizes, and cooking modes. The CA IOUs
conducted testing to evaluate pre-heating, steady-state (temperature)
operation, broiling, and self-cleaning. In addition, the CA IOUs
conducted testing according to the previous version of the test
procedure. The CA IOUs asserted, based on their test results, that
energy consumption was correlated to a number of factors, including:
Cavity size, insulation, oven input rate, and whether the product was
commercial-style. The CA IOUs noted that convection mode did not have a
clear correlation to cooking efficiency, but most ovens had a higher
efficiency in convection mode. The CA IOUs also noted that their test
results did not show a correlation between energy consumption and
retail price. (CA IOUs, No. 59) DOE appreciates the test data submitted
by the CA IOUs. As discussed in section IV.C.2.c of this document, DOE
similarly determined that conventional oven energy consumption was
related to the oven cavity volume and developed relationships between
IAEC and oven cavity volume. As discussed in section III.B of this
document, DOE repealed the test procedures for conventional ovens. DOE,
therefore, evaluated potential standards based on prescriptive design
options for conventional ovens for this NOPD, as discussed in section
IV.C.2 of this document.
Spire stated that a number of DOE's assumptions disadvantage
cooking products that use natural gas. (Spire, No. 61 at p. 7) Spire
identified DOE's assumptions with regard to the discount rate, marginal
energy costs, appliance lifetimes, installation costs, and incremental
maintenance costs, as resulting in the bias. DOE notes generally that
it based its analysis on all available data for both gas and electric
conventional cooking products, much of which was submitted by appliance
manufacturers. DOE conducts its analysis to accurately represent, to
the extent possible, the manufacture and consumer usage in the United
States of both gas and electric conventional cooking products.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
proposed determination with regard to consumer conventional cooking
products. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's
analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of
potential energy conservation standards. The first tool is a
spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential energy
conservation standards. The NIA uses a second spreadsheet tool that
provides shipments projections and calculates NES and NPV of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this proposed determination include (1) a determination
of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers
and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments
information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or
design options that could improve the energy efficiency of consumer
conventional cooking products. The key findings of DOE's market
assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of
the TSD for this NOPD for further discussion of the market and
technology assessment.
[[Page 80995]]
1. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that
justifies a different standard. In making a determination whether a
performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must
consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and
other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
During the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking for
cooking products, DOE evaluated product classes for conventional
cooking tops based on energy source (i.e., gas or electric). These
distinctions initially yielded two conventional cooking product
classes: (1) Gas cooking tops and (2) electric cooking tops. For
electric cooking tops, DOE determined that the ease of cleaning smooth
elements provides enhanced consumer utility over coil elements. Because
smooth elements typically use more energy than coil elements, DOE
defined two separate product classes for electric cooking tops. DOE
defined the following product classes for consumer conventional cooking
tops in the April 2009 Final Rule TSD (``2009 TSD''): \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The TSD from the previous residential cooking products
standards rulemaking is available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0127-0097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric cooking tops--low or high wattage open (coil)
elements;
Electric cooking tops--smooth elements; and
Gas cooking tops--conventional burners.
Induction Heating
In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE proposed to maintain the product
classes for conventional cooking tops from the previous standards
rulemaking, as presented above. DOE also proposed to consider induction
heating as a technology option for electric smooth cooking tops rather
than as a separate product class. DOE noted that induction heating
provides the same basic function of cooking or heating food as heating
by gas flame or electric resistance, and that the installation options
available to consumers are also the same for both cooking products with
induction and with electric resistance heating. In addition, in
considering whether there are any performance-related features that
justify a higher energy use standard to establish a separate product
class, DOE noted in the September 2016 SNOPR that the utility of speed
of cooking, ease of cleaning, and requirements for specific cookware
for induction cooking tops do not appear to be uniquely associated with
higher energy use compared to other smooth cooking tops with electric
resistance heating elements. 81 FR 60784, 60800-60801 (Sept. 2, 2016).
The SoCal IOUs supported DOE's analysis conducted for induction
cooking tops and DOE's decision to consider induction heating as a
technology option for electric smooth cooking tops rather than a
separate product class because induction heating provides the same
utility for electric smooth cooking tops as does electric resistance
heating. (SoCal IOUs, No. 67 at pp. 3-4) AHAM agreed with DOE's
determination that the ease of cleaning smooth elements is a consumer
utility that justifies a separate product class from electric coil
cooking tops. However, AHAM stated that it does not currently have
enough information to support or oppose DOE's proposal to consider
induction heating as a technology option for electric smooth cooking
tops rather than as a separate product class. AHAM expressed concern
whether the test procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR for
cooking tops would accurately measure the differences in energy use
between induction and other smooth element cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 64
at p. 5)
As discussed in section III.B of this document, DOE withdrew the
test procedure for conventional cooking tops in the August 2020 TP
Final Rule. However, as discussed in section IV.C.2.b of this document,
DOE determined that its testing using the water-heating method
previously adopted in the December 2016 TP Final Rule provided measures
of energy consumption that represent the energy use of both smooth-
electric resistance and smooth-induction cooking tops with relative
accuracy. For the reasons presented in the September 2016 SNOPR and
discussed above, DOE is maintaining consideration of induction cooking
tops as a technology option for electric smooth cooking tops and not as
a separate product class.
Commercial-Style Cooking Tops
Based on DOE's review of conventional gas cooking tops available on
the market, DOE determined for the September 2016 SNOPR that products
marketed as commercial-style cannot be distinguished from standard
residential-style products based on performance characteristics or
consumer utility. While conventional gas cooking tops marketed as
commercial-style have more than one burner rated above 14,000 Btu/h and
cast-iron grates, approximately 50 percent of cooking top models
marketed as residential-style also have one or more burners rated above
14,000 Btu/h and cast-iron grates.
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE considered whether
separate product classes for commercial-style gas cooking tops with
higher burner input rates are warranted by comparing the test energy
consumption of individual surface units in a sample of cooking tops
tested by DOE. For the September 2016 SNOPR analysis, DOE conducted
testing of gas surface units in a sample of twelve gas cooking tops,
which included six products marketed as commercial-style, and
determined that there was no statistically significant correlation
between burner input rate and the ratio of surface unit energy
consumption to test load mass \19\ for cooking tops marketed as either
residential-style or commercial-style. DOE noted that its testing
showed that this efficiency ratio for gas cooking tops is more closely
related to burner and grate design rather than input rate. 81 FR 60784,
60801-60802 (Sept. 2, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Because the mass of the test load depends on the input rate
of the burner, the test energy consumption must be normalized for
comparison. The higher the ratio of test energy consumption to test
load mass, the less efficient the surface unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE recognized in the September 2016 SNOPR that the presence of
certain features, such as heavy cast iron grates and multiple high
input rate burners, may help consumers perceive a difference between
commercial-style and residential-style gas cooking top performance.
However, DOE stated that it was not aware of clearly-defined and
consistent design differences and corresponding utility provided by
commercial-style gas cooking tops as compared to residential-style gas
cooking tops. 81 FR 60784, 60803 (Sept. 2, 2016). Although DOE's
testing indicated there is a difference in energy consumption between
residential-style and commercial-style gas cooking tops, this
difference could not be correlated to any specific utility provided to
consumers. Moreover, DOE stated that is not aware of an industry test
standard that evaluates cooking performance and that would quantify the
utility provided by these products. Id.
For these reasons, DOE did not propose in the September 2016 SNOPR
to establish a separate product class for gas cooking tops marketed as
commercial-style or conventional gas cooking tops with higher burner
input
[[Page 80996]]
rates. 81 FR 60784, 60803 (Sept. 2, 2016).
AHAM stated that, due to the length of the comment period and the
limited resources that could be dedicated to testing, it did not have
enough information to support or oppose DOE's proposal to not define a
separate product class for commercial-style cooking tops. Moreover,
AHAM commented that because of its concerns that the test procedure
does not produce repeatable and reproducible results and concerns with
using a test procedure designed for electric cooking tops to measure
gas cooking top energy use, it could not determine whether test results
are accurate or assess whether separate product classes are warranted.
(AHAM, No. 64 at p. 6)
Sub-Zero and Felix Storch both urged DOE to establish separate
product classes for commercial-style cooking tops. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at
p. 2; Felix Storch, No. 62 at p. 1) Sub-Zero stated that high-
performance \20\ gas cooking tops include design features that enhance
cooking performance (rapid boiling, precision simmering, and even heat
distribution) while adhering to safety requirements, but that
negatively impact efficiency as compared to conventional residential-
style cooking tops. According to Sub-Zero, gas burner design attributes
such as safety, performance, and efficiency are systematic, and that a
change to one attribute significantly affects the others. (Sub-Zero,
No. 66 at pp. 2, 4-5) The design features associated with high-
performance gas cooking tops and the utility that Sub-Zero and Miele
claimed these features provide include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Sub-Zero stated that ``high performance'' cooking is a
better descriptor of this segment than ``commercial-style'' or
``professional-style.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High input rate burners with large diameters provide
faster heat up times and allow consumers to use larger professional
cooking vessels while maintaining even heat distribution (Sub-Zero, No.
66 at p. 5);
High input rate burners with high levels of flame
controllability, specifically high turndown ratios, allow for both
simmering of foods such as chocolates and sauces and faster heat up
times (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 5);
Greater spacing between the gas flame, grate, and cooking
vessel is required for high input rate burners than for low input rate
burners to meet performance and safety requirements, specifically even
heat distribution and reduction of carbon monoxide (``CO''). Reducing
the spacing between the gas flame and the cooking vessel can increase
efficiency, but flame quenching due to flame impingement and contact
with the grate/cooking vessel can lead to increased CO emissions and
combustion by-products. Designing high performance products with safe
combustion gases provides an inherent constraint to the efficiency
level that can be attained (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at pp. 5-6);
Heavy cast iron grates allow for better heat distribution
to cooking vessels while also providing the strength required to
support large loads and increased product longevity. (Sub-Zero, No. 66
at p. 6) Heavier cast iron grates also retain more heat once the burner
is turned down during simmer or shut off. (Miele, No. 60 at p. 2; Sub-
Zero, No. 66 at pp. 5-6)
Sub-Zero commented that the features listed above deliver superior
performance by allowing consumers to use a wider range of cooking
methods that differ significantly from how the average consumer uses a
consumer conventional cooking product. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 2) Sub-
Zero also commented that high performance cooking tops typically employ
a range of burner inputs to allow consumers the ability to cook foods
that require searing on one burner and foods that require melting
temperatures on another burner. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 4) Miele
provided similar comments as Sub-Zero regarding the features that
distinguish cooking methods used with commercial-style cooking tops
compared to residential-style cooking tops, such as the added mass and
heat retention of the grates for improved temperature controllability.
(Miele, No. 60 at pp. 1-2) Both Sub-Zero and Miele stated that their
consumers often saut[eacute] at very high burner outputs, manipulate
the pans to mix the ingredients like professional chefs, flame the
contents, and keep most, if not all, the burners in the cooking top
firing together when cooking. (Miele, No. 60 at p. 2; Sub-Zero, No. 66
at p. 2) Miele added that commercial-style models may be equipped with
specialty burners such as a grill or griddle, not covered in the
proposed standards, that are used by consumers together with the
adjoining regular burners. Miele stated that the heat generated by
specialty burners is not captured in the test procedure but could
potentially provide a significant amount of heat energy to the
adjoining grates prior to the ignition and use of the adjoining
burners. Furthermore, Miele claimed that the vigorous actions of
professional-style cooking require the support structure of the heavy
grates typical of commercial-style cooking tops. (Miele, No. 60 at p.
1)
Sub-Zero suggested that DOE establish a separate product class for
residential gas cooking tops that have an average burner input rate of
at least 14,000 Btu/h and a grate mass of at least 4 pounds per burner.
Sub-Zero claimed that its suggested product class definition was based
on its research of product marketing, utility, and performance of
residential gas cooking products. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 3)
Based on DOE's testing, including the additional testing conducted
for this NOPD and discussed in section IV.C.1 of this document, DOE did
not identify a correlation between measured energy consumption of
conventional gas cooking products and any specific utility provided to
consumers. While DOE recognizes the presence of certain commercial-
style features described by manufacturers may allow consumers to cook
with a wide variety of cooking methods, manufacturers have not provided
consumer usage data demonstrating that consumers of commercial-style
cooking tops and residential-style cooking tops employ significantly
different cooking methods during a typical cooking cycle. Moreover,
manufacturers have not provided evidence that consumers of commercial-
style cooking tops would use more burners on a cooking top during a
single cooking cycle than consumers of residential-style cooking tops.
DOE notes that there are many residential-style cooking tops with one
to two high input rate burners and continuous cast iron grates that
provide consumers with the ability to sear food at high temperatures
and simmer at low temperatures.
For these reasons, DOE is not evaluating a separate product class
for gas cooking tops marketed as commercial-style or conventional gas
cooking tops with higher burner input rates. However, as discussed in
section IV.C.3.a of this document, DOE conducted its engineering
analysis consistent with products currently available on the market and
is not evaluating amendments to the current prescriptive standards for
gas cooking tops; this will maintain the features available in
conventional cooking tops marketed as commercial-style (e.g., multiple
high input rate burners, cast iron gates, etc.) that may be used to
differentiate these products in the marketplace. In addition, the
standards considered in this proposed determination are the same as
those currently in effect and thus would not alter the safety of
existing commercial-style gas cooking tops in terms of combustion
products or emissions.
[[Page 80997]]
b. Conventional Ovens
During the first energy conservation standards rulemaking for
cooking products, DOE evaluated product classes for conventional ovens
based on energy source (i.e., gas or electric). These distinctions
initially yielded two conventional oven product classes: (1) Gas ovens
and (2) electric ovens. DOE more recently determined that the type of
oven-cleaning system is a utility feature that affects performance. DOE
found that standard ovens and ovens using a catalytic continuous-
cleaning process use roughly the same amount of energy. On the other
hand, self-clean ovens use a pyrolytic process that provides enhanced
consumer utility with lower overall energy consumption as compared to
either standard or catalytically lined ovens. Therefore, in the April
2009 Final Rule analysis described in the 2009 TSD, DOE defined the
following product classes for conventional ovens:
Electric ovens--standard oven with or without a catalytic
line;
Electric ovens--self-clean oven;
Gas ovens--standard oven with or without a catalytic line;
and
Gas ovens--self-clean oven.
Self-Cleaning Technology
Based on DOE's review of conventional gas ovens available on the
U.S. market, and on manufacturer interviews and testing conducted as
part of the engineering analysis, DOE noted in the June 2015 NOPR that
the self-cleaning function of a self-clean oven may employ methods
other than a high-temperature pyrolytic cycle to perform the cleaning
action.\21\ 80 FR 33030, 33043 (June 10, 2015). DOE clarified that a
conventional self-clean electric or gas oven is an oven that has a
user-selectable mode separate from the normal baking mode, not intended
to heat or cook food, which is dedicated to cleaning and removing
cooking deposits from the oven cavity walls. Id. As part of the
September 2016 SNOPR, DOE stated that it is not aware of any
differences in consumer behavior in terms of the frequency of use of
the self-clean function that would be predicated on the type of self-
cleaning technology rather than on cleaning habits or cooking usage
patterns that are not dependent on the type of technology. As a result,
DOE did not consider establishing separate product classes based on the
type of self-cleaning technology. 81 FR 60784, 60804 (Sept. 2, 2016).
DOE did not receive any comments on the September 2016 SNOPR regarding
product classes for different self-cleaning technologies. As a result,
for the reasons discussed previously, DOE is not considering separate
product classes based on the type of self-cleaning technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ DOE noted that it is aware of a type of self-cleaning oven
that uses a proprietary oven coating and water to perform a self-
clean cycle with a shorter duration and at a significantly lower
temperature setting. The self-cleaning cycle for these ovens, unlike
catalytically-lined standard ovens that provide continuous cleaning
during normal baking, still have a separate self-cleaning mode that
is user-selectable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial-Style Ovens
With regard to gas oven burner input rates, DOE noted in the June
2015 NOPR that based on its review of the consumer conventional gas
ovens available on the market, residential-style gas ovens typically
have an input rate of 16,000 to 18,000 Btu/h, whereas residential gas
ovens marketed as commercial-style typically have burner input rates
ranging from 22,500 to 30,000 Btu/h.\22\ 80 FR 33030, 33043 (June 10,
2015). Additional review of both the residential-style and commercial-
style gas oven cavities indicated that there is significant overlap in
oven cavity volume between the two oven types. Standard residential-
style gas oven cavity volumes range from 2.5 to 5.6 cubic feet
(``ft\3\'') and gas ovens marketed as commercial-style have cavity
volumes ranging from 3.0 to 6.0 ft\3\. Sixty percent of the commercial-
style models surveyed had cavity volumes between 4.0 and 5.0 ft\3\,
while fifty percent of the standard models had cavity volumes between
4.0 and 5.0 ft\3\. The primary differentiating factor between the two
oven types was burner input rate, which is greater than 22,500 Btu/h
for commercial-style gas ovens. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ However, DOE noted that many gas ranges, while marketed as
commercial- or professional-style and having multiple surface units
with high input rates, did not have a gas oven with a burner input
rate above 22,500 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE conducted testing for the June 2015 NOPR using the version of
the test procedure later adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule to
determine whether commercial-style gas ovens with higher burner input
rates warrant establishing a separate product class. DOE evaluated the
cooking efficiency of eight conventional gas ovens, including five
ovens with burners rated at 18,000 Btu/h or less and the remaining
three with burner input rates ranging from 27,000 Btu/h to 30,000 Btu/
h. 80 FR 33030, 33043 (June 10, 2015). DOE's testing showed that the
measured cooking efficiencies for ovens with burner input rates above
22,500 Btu/h were lower than for ovens with ratings below 22,500 Btu/h,
even after normalizing cooking efficiency to a fixed cavity volume. DOE
also noted that the conventional gas ovens with higher burner input
rates in its test sample were marketed as commercial-style and had
greater total thermal mass, including heavier racks and thicker cavity
walls, even after normalizing for cavity volume. DOE's testing of a
30,000 Btu/h oven suggested that much of the energy input to
commercial-style ovens with higher burner input rates goes to heating
the added mass of the cavity, rather than the test load, resulting in
relatively lower measured efficiency when measured according to the
test procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. 80 FR 33030,
33043-33044. DOE also investigated the time it took each oven in the
test sample to heat the test load to a final test temperature of 234
degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F'') above its initial temperature, as
specified in the DOE test procedure in appendix I at the time of the
testing. DOE's testing showed that gas ovens with burner input rates
greater than 22,500 Btu/h do not heat the test load significantly
faster than the ovens with lower burner input rates, and two out of the
three units with the higher burner input rates took longer than the
average time to heat the test load. Therefore, DOE concluded in the
June 2015 NOPR that there is no unique utility associated with faster
cook times that is provided by gas ovens with burner input rates
greater than 22,500 Btu/h. 80 FR 33030, 33045.
Based on DOE's testing, reverse engineering, and additional
discussions with manufacturers, DOE posited in the June 2015 NOPR that
the major differentiation between conventional gas ovens with lower
burner input rates and those with higher input rates, including those
marketed as commercial-style, was design and construction related to
aesthetics rather than improved cooking performance. Further, DOE did
not identify any unique utility conferred by commercial-style gas
ovens. For the reasons discussed above, DOE did not propose to
establish a separate product class for commercial-style gas ovens with
higher burner input rates. 80 FR 33030, 33045 (June 10, 2015).
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, to further address whether
commercial-style ovens provide a unique utility that would warrant
establishing a separate product class, DOE conducted additional
interviews with manufacturers of commercial-style cooking products and
reviewed additional commercial-style test data. While these data
demonstrated a difference in energy consumption between residential-
style and
[[Page 80998]]
commercial-style ovens when measured according to the test procedure
adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule, this difference could not be
correlated to any specific utility provided to consumers. Moreover, DOE
stated that it is not aware of an industry test standard that evaluates
cooking performance and that would quantify the utility provided by
these products. DOE also noted that all conventional ovens, regardless
of whether or not the product is marketed as commercial-style, must
meet the same safety standards for the construction of the oven.
American National Standards Institute (``ANSI'') Z21.1 ``Household
Cooking Gas Appliances'' (``ANSI Z21.1''), Section 1.21.1, requires
that the oven structure, and specifically the baking racks, have
sufficient strength to sustain a load of up to 25 pounds depending on
the width of the rack. A similar standard (Underwriters Laboratories
(``UL'') 858 ``Household Electric Ranges'' (``UL 858'')) exists for
electric ovens. 81 FR 60784, 60805-60806 (Sept. 2, 2016).
DOE also observed as part of the September 2016 SNOPR that many of
the design features identified by manufacturers as unique to
commercial-style ovens and that may impact the energy consumption, such
as extension racks, convection fans, cooling fans, and hidden bake
elements, are also found in residential-style products. DOE noted that
the presence of these features, along with thicker oven cavity walls
and higher burner input rates, may help consumers perceive a difference
between commercial-style and residential-style ovens. However, DOE
stated in the September 2016 SNOPR that it was not aware of a clearly-
defined and consistent design difference and corresponding utility
provided by commercial-style ovens as compared to residential-style
ovens. For these reasons, DOE did not propose in the September 2016
SNOPR to establish a separate product class for commercial-style ovens.
81 FR 60784, 60806 (Sept. 2, 2016).
Sub-Zero supported a differentiation based on utility between high-
performance ovens and residential-style ovens. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p.
2) However, Sub-Zero asserted there could potentially be confusion if
DOE defines a high-performance product class for ovens in a future
rulemaking but does not do so for gas cooking tops as part of the
current rulemaking. Sub-Zero stated that since both components are
incorporated in combined cooking products such as ranges, different
product classes for different components could lead to significant
market uncertainty. Sub-Zero stated that the only accurate and
equitable solution is to define separate product classes for high-
performance ovens and gas cooking tops and set appropriate standards
based on utility and performance considerations. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at
p. 6)
Based on DOE's analysis discussed previously, DOE is not evaluating
a separate product class for commercial-style ovens.
Installation Configuration
As discussed in section III.B of this document, in the October 2012
TP Final Rule, DOE amended appendix I to include methods for measuring
fan-only mode.\23\ Based on DOE's testing of freestanding, built-in,
and slide-in conventional gas and electric ovens, DOE observed that all
of the built-in and slide-in ovens tested consumed energy in fan-only
mode, whereas freestanding ovens did not. The energy consumption in
fan-only mode for built-in and slide-in ovens ranged from approximately
1.3 to 37.6 watt-hours (``Wh'') per cycle, which corresponds to 0.25 to
7.6 kilowatt-hours per year (``kWh/yr''). Based on DOE's reverse
engineering analyses, DOE noted that built-in and slide-in products
incorporate an additional exhaust fan and vent assembly that is not
present in freestanding products. The additional energy required to
exhaust air from the oven cavity is necessary for slide-in and built-in
installation configurations to meet safety-related temperature
requirements because the oven is enclosed in cabinetry. For these
reasons, DOE proposed in the June 2015 NOPR and September 2016 SNOPR to
include separate product classes for freestanding and built-in/slide-in
ovens. 80 FR 33030, 33045 (June 10, 2015); 81 FR 60784, 60806 (Sept. 2,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Fan-only mode is an active mode that is not user-selectable
in which a fan circulates air internally or externally to the
cooking product for a finite period of time after the end of the
heating function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not receive comment on its proposal in the September 2016
SNOPR to include separate product classes for built-in/slide-in ovens.
For the reasons discussed above, DOE analyzed separate product classes
for freestanding and built-in/slide-in ovens for this NOPD.
In summary, DOE analyzed the product classes listed in Table IV-1
for this NOPD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.001
[[Page 80999]]
2. Technology Options
As part of the market and technology assessment, DOE uses
information about existing and past technology options and prototype
designs to help identify technologies that manufacturers could use to
improve energy efficiency. Initially, these technologies encompass all
those that DOE believes are technologically feasible. Chapter 3 of the
TSD for this NOPD includes the detailed list and descriptions of all
technology options identified for this equipment.
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE proposed to consider the
technology options for conventional cooking tops listed in Table IV-2.
81 FR 60784, 60808 (Sept. 2, 2016).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.002
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE received comments
regarding the potential energy savings and applicability of the
improved contact conductance and low-standby-loss electronic control
technology options for conventional cooking tops. These specific
technology options are discussed in the following sections.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Catalytic burners were included in the September 2016 SNOPR
screening analysis, but not included in the table of technology
options.
\25\ Previous comments and DOE's responses on the various
cooking top technology options listed in Table IV-2 are discussed in
the September 2016 SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 60807-60808 (Sept. 2, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Contact Conductance
AHAM opposed improved contact conductance as a technology option
for electric coil cooking tops. AHAM commented that the test procedure
specifies narrow tolerances on the flatness of the test vessel, which
AHAM feels are appropriate to reduce variability in test results. AHAM
stated that if a consumer does not use pots with comparable flatness,
any reduction in energy consumption due to greater flatness of the
heating element that would be measured using the test procedure will
not be realized in the field. AHAM supplied data from testing of
different pan diameters and materials showing that all pan materials
warp after the first use, and the warping continues as the cookware is
used.\26\ Based on this testing, AHAM asserted that consumers are using
warped pans and that improving the flatness of the heating element will
not achieve improved contact conductance. AHAM stated, therefore, that
the energy savings associated with the improved contact conductance
technology option measured under the test procedure is not
representative of what consumer will experience in the field and, as a
result, this should not be considered as a technology option. (AHAM,
No. 64 at pp. 7-10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ AHAM test data showed that the average pan warpage ranged
from -0.02 inches for aluminum pans to -0.08 inches for stainless
steel pans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE agrees that, based on the test data provided by AHAM, improving
the flatness of the electric coil heating element may not result in
energy savings due to the warping of pots and pans used by consumers.
As a result, DOE did not consider improved contact conductance as a
technology option for electric coil cooking tops for this NOPD.
Low-Standby-Loss Electronic Controls
AHAM commented that most baseline products on the market are
already using a low-standby-loss SMPS and, as a result, this should not
be considered a viable technology option to improve efficiency for
electric smooth cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 10) Among the six
electric smooth cooking tops that DOE tore down, DOE observed units
that incorporated a baseline efficiency linear power supply. As a
result, DOE maintained SMPS as a technology option for reducing the
standby power consumption of electric smooth cooking tops for this
NOPD.
Table IV-3 lists the technology options for cooking tops that DOE
considered for this NOPD.
[[Page 81000]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.003
b. Conventional Ovens
In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE proposed to consider the
technology options for conventional ovens listed in Table IV-4. 81 FR
60784, 60808-60810 (Sept. 2, 2016).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.004
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE received a number of
comments regarding the potential energy savings and applicability of
intermittent/interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot ignition
systems, forced convection, improved insulation, improved door seals,
oven separator, reduced conduction losses, and reduced vent rate, as
technology options for conventional ovens. These specific technology
options are discussed in the following sections.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Prevoius comments and DOE's responses on the various oven
technology options listed in Table IV-4 are discussed in the June
2015 NOPR and September 2016 SNOPR. 80 FR 33030, 33046-33047 (June
10, 2015); 81 FR 60784, 60808-60810 (Sept. 2, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermittent/Interrupted Ignition or Intermittent Pilot Ignition System
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE conducted a review of
ignition systems available on the market as well as various industry
definitions for automatic gas ignition available in household gas
appliances. DOE based its analysis on existing industry terminology
such as definitions available in ANSI Z21.1 and ANSI Z21.20,
``Automatic Electrical Controls for Household and Similar Use Part 2:
Particular Requirements for Automatic Burner Ignition Systems and
Components.'' When a conventional gas oven cooking cycle is initiated,
an ignition system is energized before gas is allowed to flow to the
main burner to be lit. Ignition types observed on the market for
conventional gas ovens fall under three categories: (1) Intermittent
ignition, (2) intermittent/interrupted ignition, and (3) intermittent
pilot ignition.\28\ 81 FR 60784, 60809 (Sept. 2, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Continuous ignition systems (e.g., constant-burning or
``standing'' pilot), defined in ANSI Z21.1, were eliminated for all
gas cooking products by the current standards as of April 9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE noted in the September 2016 SNOPR that its testing showed that
intermittent pilot ignition systems (i.e., electronic spark ignition
systems) reduce energy consumption as compared to intermittent glo-bar
ignition systems. However, based on DOE's review of different ignition
systems, DOE additionally determined that energy savings can be
achieved from switching from the baseline intermittent glo-bar ignition
system to either an intermittent/interrupted ignition or intermittent
pilot ignition. As a result, DOE expanded the gas ignition system
technology option to account for both of these options. 81 FR
[[Page 81001]]
60784, 60809-60810 (Sept. 2, 2016). Because DOE proposed in the
September 2016 SNOPR to adopt a prescriptive standard for the control
system of conventional gas ovens to require the use of an intermittent/
interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot ignition, DOE also proposed
to define ``intermittent/interrupted ignition'' and ``intermittent
pilot ignition'' in 10 CFR 430.2. 81 FR 60784, 60810.
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, Spire reiterated its April
14, 2014 comments \29\ that its test data indicate that glo-bar
ignition systems consume only 0.16 kWh per cycle. Spire claimed that
this is equivalent to 160 W, which is no more than half of DOE's
estimates. (Spire, No. 61 at pp. 5-6) DOE responded to these comments
in the June 2015 NOPR by presenting test data on the glo-bar power and
energy consumption from its test sample. DOE noted that while the power
consumption of the glo-bar ignition systems was measured as 330 W to
450 W, the per-cycle energy consumption was similar to that reported by
Spire, ranging from 0.141 to 0.261 kWh, because the glo-bar ignition
systems do not stay on for the entire cooking cycle and instead cycle
on and off as the main burner cycles on and off. 80 FR 33030, 33051
(June 10, 2015). DOE analyzed standards for conventional ovens using
the IAEC metric, which includes the energy use from the glo-bar
ignition system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Spire, formerly the Laclede Group, Inc., April 14, 2014
comments are available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM and GE questioned whether DOE's proposal to require gas ovens
to be equipped with an intermittent/interrupted ignition or
intermittent pilot ignition would achieve energy savings. AHAM and GE
noted that a glo-bar ignition system, which stays on when the main
burner is on, contributes heat to the cavity and the food load. (AHAM,
No. 64 at p. 28; GE, No. 72 at p. 3) AHAM stated that unlike DOE's
testing that compared two different models, one with a glo-bar ignition
and one with an intermittent/interrupted or intermittent pilot system,
AHAM members conducted testing by comparing the same model with two
different ignition systems. AHAM member testing, presented in Table IV-
5, showed that the units equipped with the glo-bar ignition system
consumed less energy than the same models equipped with the
intermittent pilot (i.e., spark ignition) system. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp.
28-29)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.005
In addition, AHAM and GE presented data from testing of a single
oven that was configured to switch between the glo-bar ignition system
and the intermittent pilot ignition system. AHAM and GE noted that the
testing, conducted according to the DOE test procedure adopted in the
July 2015 TP Final Rule, showed that when replacing the glo-bar
ignition system with spark ignition, the electrical energy consumed by
the glo-bar is replaced by additional gas usage when using the
intermittent pilot ignition system, and the overall energy use of both
systems is essentially the same. Based on this, AHAM and GE asserted
that replacing the glo-bar ignition system with an intermittent/
interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot ignition does not achieve
energy savings. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 29-30; GE, No. 72 at p. 3)
Based on review of the additional test data provided by AHAM, DOE
agrees that replacing the intermittent glo-bar ignition system with an
intermittent/interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot ignition may
not achieve energy savings due to the elimination of heat input that
the glo-bar contributes to the cavity and food load, which must be
offset by additional gas consumption. As a result, DOE is no longer
considering intermittent/interrupted or intermittent pilot ignition
systems as a technology option. Because DOE is no longer considering
these ignition systems as technology options, DOE is not considering
prescriptive standards to require that conventional gas ovens be
equipped with a control system that uses intermittent/interrupted
ignition or intermittent pilot ignition in this NOPD.
Instead, DOE is evaluating prescriptive standards requiring that
conventional ovens not be equipped with a control system that uses a
linear power supply. DOE's analysis revealed that conventional ovens at
the baseline efficiency level use a conventional linear power supply
control design. A linear power supply typically produces unregulated as
well as regulated power. The main characteristic of an unregulated
power supply is that its output may contain significant voltage ripple
and that the output voltage will usually vary with the current drawn.
The voltages produced by regulated power supplies are typically more
stable, exhibiting less ripple than the output from an unregulated
power supply and maintaining a relatively constant voltage within the
specified current limits of the device(s) regulating the power. The
unregulated portion of a linear power supply typically consists of a
transformer that steps alternating current (``AC'') line voltage down,
a voltage rectifier circuit for AC to direct current (``DC'')
conversion, and a capacitor to produce unregulated, DC output. However,
there are other means of producing and implementing an unregulated
power supply such as
[[Page 81002]]
transformerless capacitive and/or resistive rectification circuits.
Within a linear power supply, the unregulated output serves as an
input into a single or multiple voltage-regulating devices. Such
regulating devices include Zener diodes, linear voltage regulators, or
similar components which produce a lower-potential, regulated power
output from a higher-potential DC input. This approach results in a
rugged power supply which is reliable, but typically has an efficiency
of about 40 percent. As discussed in section IV.C.2.b of this document,
DOE's analysis showed that switching from a conventional linear power
supply to an SMPS reduces the standby mode energy consumption for
conventional ovens. An SMPS offers higher conversion efficiencies of up
to 75 percent in appliance applications for power supply sizes similar
to those of conventional ovens. An SMPS also reduces the no-load
standby losses. DOE seeks comment on both its initial decision to no
longer consider intermittent/interrupted or intermittent pilot ignition
systems as a technology option, and its initial decision to only
evaluate prescriptive standards requiring that conventional ovens not
be equipped with a control system that uses a linear power supply (see
section VII.B of this document).
Forced Convection
AHAM commented that, depending on the total energy consumption of
the unit, the convection motor wattage could negate any potential
energy savings of forced convection. AHAM also asserted that convection
is not appropriate for cooking all food types, such as covered food
loads. AHAM commented that because DOE proposed to repeal the oven test
procedure in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, there was no way to determine
whether there are efficiency gains from this technology option. (AHAM,
No. 64 at p. 11)
As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this NOPD, DOE conducted
testing on ovens equipped with forced convection, comparing the
measured energy consumption of each oven in bake mode to the average
energy consumption of bake mode and convection mode, including energy
consumption due to the fan motor, as specified in the test procedure
adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. Based on this testing, DOE
determined that forced convection provides a 4 to 6-percent increase in
cooking efficiency. In addition, DOE notes that because the test
procedure specified that the bake mode and convection mode energy
consumption be averaged when calculating cooking efficiency, the test
procedure did not assume that forced convection would be used for
cooking all food loads. For these reasons, DOE retained forced
convection as a technology option for this NOPD. However, as discussed
in section III.B of this document, DOE repealed the test procedures for
conventional ovens. DOE will reevaluate the energy savings associated
with this technology option if it considers performance standards in a
future rulemaking.
Improved Insulation
AHAM commented that DOE's estimate of the efficiency increase
associated with improved insulation is based on data from the 1996
TSD.\30\ AHAM also noted that added insulation would decrease the
overall cavity size and reduce consumer utility. AHAM commented that
DOE must conduct testing on products currently on the market using an
active test procedure to determine the energy savings associated with
these technology options. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 13) As discussed in
chapter 3 of the TSD for this NOPD, DOE noted that using denser
insulation can increase cooking efficiency, and that self-clean ovens
typically have a more effective insulation package to meet surface
temperature safety requirements due to the higher temperatures during
the self-cleaning operation. DOE observed from teardowns of products in
its test sample that standard and self-clean ovens may use different
density insulations. As a result, DOE believes that the efficiency of
standard ovens can be increased by using improved insulation. For these
reasons, DOE maintained improved insulation as a technology option for
standard ovens for this NOPD, although as discussed in section IV.B.1.b
of this document, DOE screened out added insulation from further
analysis. DOE recognizes that the estimates for the energy savings may
vary depending on the test procedure. DOE will reevaluate the energy
savings associated with this technology option if it considers
performance standards in a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Available online at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0070-0053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Door Seals
AHAM commented that further improving door seals will lead to a
loss of performance due to a loss of sufficient airflow. According to
AHAM, door seals are already optimized to retain heat while offering
enough airflow for cooking performance. AHAM stated that if the door is
sealed further, increased airflow would be required by means of
implementing an additional motor that would likely consume more energy,
and the 1-percent energy gain DOE estimated would be eliminated. For
these reasons, AHAM opposed considering improved door seals as a
technology option. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 11)
As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this NOPD, DOE noted that
because some venting is required for proper cooking performance, a
complete seal on the oven is undesirable. However, the oven door seals
can be improved further without sealing the oven completely. As
discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD for this NOPD, the estimated
efficiency improvement for improving the door seals was based on
replacing the baseline silicone rubber door seal that DOE observed in
its test sample with the fiberglass door seals with metallic mesh
typically found in self-clean ovens and that DOE also observed in its
test sample. As a result, DOE initially concludes that efficiency can
be increased by improving the door seals and retained this technology
option for this NOPD.
Oven Separator
AHAM opposed considering oven separators as a technology option.
AHAM commented that oven separators are not a widely available feature
and that DOE does not have data to show the frequency with which
consumers actually use the oven separator. AHAM stated that without
knowing whether consumers use the oven separator, it is not possible to
determine the energy savings that would be realized in the field.
(AHAM, No. 64 at p. 11) DOE notes that the test procedure adopted in
the July 2015 TP Final Rule specified that the total AEC of an oven
equipped with an oven separator be calculated as the average energy. As
discussed in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE's testing showed that oven
separators can reduce energy use by reducing the cavity volume that
must be heated. 81 FR 60784, 60818. Because oven separators have the
potential to reduce energy use for conventional electric ovens, DOE
retained this technology option for this NOPD.
Reduced Conduction Losses
AHAM commented that DOE's data on reduced conduction losses are
based on products that are more than 10 years old. AHAM noted that
testing at the time indicated an extremely small absolute percentage
point increase in efficiency of 0.05 percent, and that DOE does not
have any current data to evaluate the efficiency improvement for
products currently on the market.
[[Page 81003]]
(AHAM, No. 64 at p. 12) Based on DOE's testing and reverse engineering
for this proposed determination, DOE did not observe variation in the
interface between the door and the oven cavity that would demonstrate
an opportunity for improving efficiency. As a result, DOE did not
consider reduced conduction losses as a technology option in this NOPD.
Reduced Vent Rate
AHAM opposed considering reduced vent rate as a technology option.
AHAM commented that DOE's estimates of energy savings rely on old
testing and product designs, and that the negligible energy savings are
based on a test procedure that DOE proposed to repeal in the August
2016 TP SNOPR. According to AHAM, any future energy savings may not be
captured if the test procedure is changed. AHAM also commented that
oven vent rates are part of a complex air flow design that affects
preheat times, cooking performance, and fire and explosion safety
performance. AHAM asserted that forcing manufacturers to implement this
technology option would reduce energy use by a negligible amount while
forcing a significant redesign effort. AHAM added that this could also
lead to the elimination of self-clean ovens or cause poor cooking
performance because it would result in low air flow and the development
of hots spots in the cavity. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 12)
DOE notes that it proposed to consider reduced vent rate as a
technology option for only electric standard ovens, and that no further
increase in efficiency can be achieved for gas and electric self-clean
ovens and gas standard ovens with this technology option. In addition,
because DOE did not consider reduced vent rate for gas ovens, DOE does
not believe that fire and explosion safety performance from gas
combustion would be an issue. As noted in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
observed from its testing that reduced vent rate could be considered
for improving the cooking efficiency for electric standard ovens. 81 FR
60784, 60810 (Sept. 2, 2016). As a result, DOE retained reduced vent
rate as a technology option for electric standard ovens in this NOPD.
Table IV-6 lists the technology options for ovens that DOE
considered for this NOPD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.006
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will
not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it
is determined that mass production and reliable installation and
servicing of a technology in commercial products could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is
determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact
on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers
or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type
with performance characteristics (including reliability), features,
sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as
products generally available in the United States at the time, it
will not be considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined
that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health
or safety, it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
uses proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3) and 7(b)
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed criteria, it
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed
below.
The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties
pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
For conventional cooking tops, in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
screened out radiant gas burners, catalytic burners, reduced excess air
at burner, and reflective surfaces. 81 FR 60784, 60810-60811 (Sept. 2,
2016). DOE did not receive any comments opposing the technology options
screened out in the September 2016 SNOPR. For the same reasons
discussed in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE is continuing to screen out
radiant gas burners, catalytic burners, reduced excess air at burner,
and reflective surfaces from further analysis in this NOPD.
In addition, AHAM commented that halogen heating elements are not
being used in any commercially available products or working
prototypes. AHAM also noted that DOE's estimated energy savings using
the previous version of the test procedure are no longer relevant. AHAM
asserted that halogen
[[Page 81004]]
heating elements should be screened out from the analysis. (AHAM, No.
64 at p. 10) Based on DOE's review of products available on the market
and its product teardowns, DOE is not aware of any cooking tops that
incorporate halogen heating elements. Because this technology is
currently not being used commercially or in working prototypes, DOE
does not believe that it would be practicable to produce this
technology in commercial products on the scale necessary to serve the
market by the potential compliance date of the proposed standards. As a
result, DOE is screening out halogen elements from further analysis in
this NOPD.
AHAM commented that the optimized burner and grate design
technology option for gas cooking tops should be screened out from the
analysis. AHAM stated that designs of the burner system components are
interdependent and must consider safety as well. According to AHAM, gas
cooking top burner and grate designs are already optimized to meet
consumer utility and to stay within combustion safety requirements.
AHAM also asserted that the additional heat retention of heavier grates
contributes to the efficiency of longer cooking cycles that are not
measured under the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 6)
As discussed in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE considered different
efficiency levels associated with the optimized burner and grate design
technology option that it observed in products available on the market,
including a range of commercial-style gas cooking tops that maintain
the utilities discussed previously in section IV.A.1.a of this
document. 81 FR 60784, 60187 (Sept. 2, 2016). DOE characterized the
optimized burner and grate design incremental efficiency levels based
on different observed features (e.g., high input rate burners, grate
types and material). DOE further notes that all gas cooking tops on the
market, including those with an optimized burner and grate design, have
been certified to applicable safety standards. However, DOE recognizes
that the estimates for the energy savings associated with optimized
burner and grate design may vary depending on the test procedure, and
thus screened out this technology option from further analysis of gas
cooking tops. DOE will reevaluate the energy savings associated with
this technology option if it considers performance standards in a
future rulemaking.
b. Conventional Ovens
For conventional ovens, in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE screened
out added insulation, bi-radiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no oven door
window, reflective surfaces, and optimized burner and cavity design. 81
FR 60784, 60811 (Sept. 2, 2016).
AHAM supported DOE's proposal to screen out optimized burner and
cavity design as well as no oven door window from the analysis. (AHAM,
No. 64 at pp. 12, 13) Because DOE did not receive any comments opposing
the technology options screened out in the September 2016 SNOPR, for
the same reasons discussed in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE screened
out added insulation, bi-radiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no oven door
window, reflective surfaces, and optimized burner and cavity design
from further analysis in this NOPD.
2. Remaining Technologies
Based on the screening analysis, DOE considered the design options
listed in Table IV-7 for conventional cooking tops and Table IV-8 for
conventional ovens.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.008
DOE determined that these technology options are technologically
feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in
commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds
that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening
criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do
not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product
availability, health, or safety, nor require unique-pathway proprietary
technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the TSD for
this NOPD.
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of conventional cooking
products. There are two elements to consider in the engineering
analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the
``efficiency analysis'') and the determination of product cost at each
efficiency level (i.e., the ``cost analysis''). In determining the
performance of higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies
[[Page 81005]]
and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening
analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as
well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above
the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) Relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill''
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the ``max-tech'' level (particularly
in cases where the ``max-tech'' level exceeds the maximum efficiency
level currently available on the market).
In this rulemaking, DOE is adopting a design-option approach,
supplemented by reverse engineering (physical teardowns and testing of
existing products in the market) to identify the incremental cost and
efficiency improvement associated with each design option or design
option combination. In addition, DOE considered data from the previous
rulemaking analysis provided in the 2009 TSD. DOE also conducted
interviews with manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products
to develop a deeper understanding of the various combinations of design
options used to increase product efficiency, and their associated
manufacturing costs.
DOE conducted testing and reverse engineering teardowns on products
available on the market. Because there are no performance-based energy
conservation standards or energy reporting requirements for consumer
conventional cooking products, DOE selected test units based on
performance-related features and technologies advertised in product
literature.
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
As noted in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE's test sample for
conventional cooking tops included four gas cooking tops, eight gas
ranges, six electric cooking tops, and two electric ranges for a total
of 20 conventional cooking tops covering all of the considered product
classes. 81 FR 60784, 60811-60812 (Sept. 2, 2016). DOE conducted
testing on each cooking top in its test sample. DOE notes that it
originally conducted testing using the withdrawn hybrid test block
method proposed in the December 2014 TP SNOPR. DOE also tested nine of
the twenty units in its test sample using the water heating test method
adopted in the December 2016 TP Final Rule, which as discussed in
section III.B of this document has since been withdrawn. To maintain
its full test sample to be representative of products on the market,
DOE then used the relative difference in results between the two test
methods to scale the normalized total cooking top energy consumption
for the remaining units in its test sample.
DOE conducted physical teardowns on each test unit to develop a
manufacturing cost model and to evaluate key design features. DOE
supplemented its reverse engineering analyses by conducting
manufacturer interviews to obtain feedback on efficiency levels, design
options, inputs for the manufacturing cost model, and resulting
manufacturing costs. DOE used the results from testing, reverse
engineering, and manufacturer interviews to develop the efficiency
levels and manufacturing costs discussed in section IV.C.2 and section
IV.C.3 of this document.
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, AHAM requested information
on which of the IAECs for units in DOE's test sample were measured
using the methods proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR and which IAECs
were calculated using scaling factors derived from the results of
testing using the hybrid test block method proposed in the December
2014 TP SNOPR. AHAM also requested that DOE provide the scaling factors
for each scaled unit in the test sample. (AHAM, No. 57 at p. 2) On
October 24, 2016, DOE added to the rulemaking docket the information
requested by AHAM, which included: (1) The IAECs for the units tested
according to the August 2016 TP SNOPR, (2) the IAECs for the units
tested according to the withdrawn hybrid test block method, and (3) the
scaling factor used to scale results obtained with the hybrid test
block method.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM did not agree with DOE's method to scale results using the
difference between products tested with both the hybrid block and
water-heating test procedures. AHAM did not believe that DOE had enough
data to understand how different cooking top configurations affect the
scaling factor, and as such asserted that DOE should not develop a
scaling factor. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 14-15) AHAM noted that the hybrid
test block method specified three different test load diameters, while
the test procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR specified eight
different test load diameters. Additionally, AHAM claimed that due to
the variety of cooking top configurations and surface unit diameters
that were available on the U.S. market, a single scaling factor for any
cooking top product class would not be meaningful. (AHAM, No. 64 at p.
14)
AHAM specifically noted that the scaling factors used for the
smooth-electric resistance cooking tops were calculated using units
that contained multi-ring elements. AHAM also stated that because
``zone-less'' smooth-induction cooking tops (i.e., those with full-
surface induction) were tested differently than ``zoned'' smooth-
induction cooking tops (i.e., those with individual surface units)--the
test load sizes were based on the number of controls rather than the
diameter of each of the surface units--it was inappropriate to use a
scaling factor developed using zoned cooking tops for zone-less cooking
tops. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 14-15) Furthermore, for gas cooking tops,
AHAM stated that because DOE's test sample contained cooking tops with
unique burner/grate designs that had an impact on the efficiency of the
product, it was inappropriate to apply the same scaling factor to all
of the gas models in the DOE test sample. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 16)
AHAM noted that DOE tested less than half of the cooking tops in
its test
[[Page 81006]]
sample according to the test procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP
SNOPR, and as a result, based the standards for conventional cooking
tops proposed in the September 2016 SNOPR on test data for only nine
products. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 14) Moreover, AHAM stated that because
the rulemaking started 3 years prior to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
relied on old samples for its analysis and that it was possible that
products on the market at the time of AHAM's comments differed from the
products on the market at the time DOE started its analysis. (AHAM, No.
64 at p. 14) AHAM also commented that the number of different product
types in DOE's test sample was disproportionate to the percentage of
shipments for each product type. AHAM noted that DOE tested only two
smooth-electric resistance cooking tops and three electric coil cooking
tops even though these product types represented a significant portion
of the market. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 14, 16)
AHAM submitted test data for 8 electric coil cooking tops, 15
electric smooth cooking tops (11 electric resistance and 4 induction),
and 10 gas cooking tops. AHAM's test results are presented in Table IV-
9 to Table IV-11. The coefficient of variation in AHAM's test data
ranges from 7.1 to 9.2 percent, depending on the product class.
According to AHAM, this variation introduced uncertainty about whether
or not a data point would meet the proposed standard level and made it
difficult to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed standard.
(AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 18, 20)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.010
[[Page 81007]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.011
DOE notes that for each of the electric cooking top product
classes, it did not base the scaling factor on simply the overall AEC
calculated according to each test method, because the difference in the
overall AECs that were measured for each electric cooking top subject
to the two test methods varied by more than 2 percentage points for
some product classes. Instead, DOE scaled the measured results for each
individual surface unit of each cooking top based on the heating
technology of the surface unit (coil, smooth-electric resistance, and
smooth-induction) and the surface unit diameter, accounting for any
difference in the diameter of the test loads for each respective test
method used to test the surface unit. The scaling factors presented in
DOE's October 24, 2016 response to AHAM's data request thus are an
average obtained from individually scaling four or more surface units
per cooking top, and represent the aggregate difference between the
overall AEC determined using each test method.
This scaling method for electric cooking tops allowed DOE to
account for configuration differences among units in its test sample,
including the presence of multi-ring surface units, and the effects of
the test cookware selection process specified in the December 2016 TP
Final Rule. Regarding the latter, for a given surface unit, the test
vessel with a diameter that most closely matched the surface unit
diameter was selected for the test. The number of test vessels and test
vessel size categories \32\ needed to assess the energy consumption of
the cooking top was based on the number of controls that could be
independently but simultaneously operated on the cooking top. If the
number of independent controls/surface units for the cooking top
exceeded two, the cooking top was required to be tested with test
vessels from at least two cookware categories. As a result, the test
vessel selected for testing an individual surface unit was based on the
diameter of that surface unit as well as the configuration of diameters
of all the surface units on the cooking top to ensure that the test
vessel size category requirements were also met. Scaling test results
for each individual surface unit ensured that DOE factored in this test
procedure requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Test vessels are grouped into categories based on ranges of
test vessel diameters to represent different cookware types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, for the gas cooking top test data that were scaled
from the results using the hybrid test block method, DOE used the
average difference in overall AEC between the two test methods to scale
the test results because the test load selection process for gas
cooking tops depended only on the input rate of each individual burner
and did not depend on the configuration of all the burners on the
cooking top. Thus, scaling by the percent difference in overall AEC
instead of surface unit energy consumption was appropriate for gas
cooking tops, as evidenced by the results for the three gas units in
the DOE test sample that were tested according both test methods. For
these three gas cooking tops, the percent difference in overall AEC
varied less than 1 percentage point.
For these reasons, in this NOPD DOE maintained the same approach to
scale test results measured with the hybrid test block method and
updated the scaling factors to reflect the test procedure adopted in
the December 2016 TP Final Rule.
DOE's test sample of 20 consumer conventional cooking products that
were used for the September 2016 SNOPR analysis, as well as being
subjected to additional testing for this NOPD, comprised units
purchased in 2014 and 2015. To supplement its analysis for this NOPD,
DOE also purchased and tested two additional commercial-style gas
cooking tops and one additional smooth-electric resistance cooking top.
DOE has periodically reviewed the market throughout the course of the
rulemaking and has determined that this test sample captures the range
of features currently available on the market for each product class.
The key characteristics and test results for all cooking top units in
DOE's test sample are listed in Table IV-12 and Table IV-13.
[[Page 81008]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.013
For completeness, DOE supplemented its dataset by incorporating
AHAM's test data, and considered this combined dataset in evaluating
the efficiency levels, as discussed in section IV.C.2 of this document.
The combined dataset significantly expands the number of models
included in the engineering analysis and further ensures that the full
range of energy consumption for products on the market is captured.
b. Conventional Ovens
As noted in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE's test sample for
conventional ovens included 1 gas wall oven, 7 gas ranges, 5 electric
wall ovens, and 2 electric ranges for a total of 15 conventional ovens
covering all of the considered product classes. DOE conducted testing
according to the test procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule.
81 FR 60784, 60812 (Sept. 2, 2016). As discussed in section III.B of
[[Page 81009]]
this document, although DOE has since repealed the conventional oven
test procedure in appendix I, DOE based its analyses on the data
measured using that test procedure. Table IV-14 and Table IV-15 present
the testing results maintained from the September 2016 SNOPR for the
conventional gas and electric ovens, respectively. As with cooking
tops, DOE used the results from testing, reverse engineering, and
manufacturer interviews to develop the efficiency levels and
manufacturing costs for conventional ovens discussed in section IV.C.2
and section IV.C.3 of this document.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.015
2. Efficiency Levels
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
A baseline unit is a product that just meets current Federal energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the baseline unit for comparison in
several phases of the NOPD analyses, including the engineering
analysis, LCC analysis, PBP analysis, and NIA. To determine energy
savings that will result from an amended energy conservation standard,
DOE compares energy use at each of the higher energy efficiency levels
to the energy consumption of the baseline unit. Similarly, to determine
the changes in price to the consumer that will result from an amended
energy conservation standard, DOE compares the price of a unit at each
higher efficiency level to the price of a unit at the baseline.
Conventional Cooking Tops
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE developed baseline
efficiency levels by considering both data from the previous standards
rulemaking and the energy use for the test units based on the water
heating test procedure that was later adopted in the December 2016 TP
Final Rule. 81 FR 60784, 60813-60814 (Sept. 2, 2016). DOE conducted
testing for units in its test sample to measure IAEC, which included
energy use in active mode and standby mode. DOE also requested energy
use data as part of the manufacturer interviews. However, because
manufacturers were not required at the time of the September 2016 SNOPR
to conduct testing according to the DOE test procedure, very little
energy use information was available. DOE noted in the September 2016
SNOPR that the highest measured IAEC in DOE's test sample was higher
than the baseline IAEC observed during the 2009 rulemaking for each
cooking top product class, suggesting that the baseline energy
consumption of cooking tops has increased since 2009. Thus, to
establish the new baseline IAEC for cooking tops, DOE set the baseline
IAEC equal to the maximum IAEC measured in the test sample for each
product class. 81 FR 60784, 60814.
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, because DOE observed that
baseline electric coil cooking tops and gas cooking tops have only
electromechanical controls, DOE calculated the baseline IAEC for these
product classes based on zero standby mode and off mode energy
consumption. In contrast, baseline
[[Page 81010]]
electric cooking tops with smooth elements have electronic controls
which consume energy in standby and off mode. For the September 2016
SNOPR, DOE determined the baseline IAEC for electric smooth cooking
tops by setting the baseline standby energy consumption equal to that
of the cooking top with the highest standby energy consumption in its
test sample to maintain the full functionality of controls for consumer
utility. 81 FR 60784, 60814 (Sept. 2, 2016).
The baseline efficiency levels for conventional cooking tops
proposed in the September 2016 SNOPR are presented in Table IV-16. Id.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.016
AHAM commented that all electric coil cooking tops will require a
significant redesign to comply with a change to the voluntary safety
standard, UL 858, which took effect on June 15, 2018. The updated UL
858 requires manufacturers to monitor and limit pan bottom temperature
for coil elements to reduce the incidence of unattended cooking fires.
AHAM stated that, at the time of the comment, manufacturers were
developing products to comply with the UL 858 requirements and did not
yet know how the changes would impact energy consumption. AHAM asserted
that DOE's data and efficiency level analysis may not be representative
because they do not reflect products that will enter the market before
the compliance date of DOE's proposed standards. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp.
19-20)
DOE notes that AHAM did not provide data showing how the redesigns
necessary to comply with changes to UL 858 impact the measured energy
use for electric coil cooking tops. AHAM did, however, provide data in
its petition requesting the withdrawal of the test procedure for
conventional cooking tops, showing that the time to boil did not
significantly increase using temperature limiting controls on electric
coil cooking tops that meet UL 858's recently updated requirements.\33\
As a result, DOE did not revise its efficiency level analysis for this
NOPD based on the requirements in UL 858.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ AHAM's petition requesting the withdrawal of the test
procedure for conventional cooking tops is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the standby energy consumption for baseline
electric coil and gas cooking tops, GE commented that the test
procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, which proposed to
apportion standby power to the cooking top on a combined cooking
product, negatively impacts the cooking top IAEC. GE noted that on a
majority of combined cooking products, while the entire product may
consume standby power, the controls for the cooking top component
consist of electromechanical switches that consume no standby power. GE
stated that, as a result of assigning a portion of the standby energy
consumption measured for the full combined cooking product to the
cooking top component, when comparing the IAEC between an
electromechanically controlled stand-alone cooking top and a similarly
controlled combined cooking product that has a cooking top, the
combined product's cooking top will appear to use more energy. (GE, No.
72 at p. 2)
DOE agrees with GE's assertion that apportioning standby power to
the cooking top component on a combined cooking product negatively
impacts the cooking top IAEC. As discussed in chapter 9 of the TSD for
this NOPD, combined cooking products, such as ranges, represent over 70
percent of the total shipments for consumer conventional cooking
products. As a result, DOE revised its analysis for electric coil and
gas cooking tops, including the baseline efficiency levels, to account
for the standby power consumption apportioned to the cooking top
component of a combined product based on the maximum standby power for
each product class in DOE's test sample for a cooking top that is part
of a combined cooking product. DOE estimated the annual standby energy
consumption for gas and electric coil cooking tops to be 30 thousand
British thermal units per year (``kBtu/yr'') and 5 kWh/yr,
respectively. Because DOE's analysis for electric smooth cooking tops
already included standby power, and because the range of observed
standby power was similar for stand-alone electric smooth cooking tops
and combined cooking products with an electric smooth cooking top, DOE
is maintaining its estimates for the standby power consumption of
electric smooth cooking tops in this NOPD. DOE also notes that the
majority of products in AHAM's test sample, which was factored into
this analysis, were conventional ranges that included standby power
consumption for the cooking top component.
Based on AHAM's comments regarding the validity of DOE's test
sample discussed in section IV.C.1.a of this document, DOE evaluated
the combined dataset, including both DOE and AHAM test data, to
determine the baseline efficiency levels for this NOPD. For each
product class, the IAEC of several units in AHAM's test sample exceeded
the baseline efficiency proposed in the September 2016 SNOPR. In light
of this, DOE revised the baseline IAEC to equal the maximum IAEC
observed in the combined DOE and AHAM test sample for each product
class, as shown in Table IV-17.
[[Page 81011]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.017
Conventional Ovens
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE developed baseline
efficiency levels for conventional ovens considering both data from the
previous standards rulemaking and the measured energy use for the test
units. DOE conducted testing for all units in its test sample to
measure IAEC, which included energy use in active mode (including fan-
only mode) and standby mode. 81 FR 60784, 60814 (Sept. 2, 2016). As
discussed in the September 2016 SNOPR, to address concerns raised by
interested parties in response to the June 2015 NOPR regarding the
limited data used to establish the baseline efficiency levels for the
electric standard oven product classes, DOE augmented its analysis of
electric standard ovens by considering the energy use of the electric
self-clean units in its test sample, adjusted to account for the
differences between standard-clean and self-clean ovens. Augmenting the
electric standard oven dataset with self-clean models from the DOE test
sample allowed DOE to consider a wider range of cavity volumes in its
analysis. 81 FR 60784, 60815.
To establish the baseline efficiency levels for conventional ovens,
DOE first derived a relationship between IAEC and cavity volume as
discussed in section IV.C.2.c of this document. Using the slope from
the previous rulemaking, DOE selected new intercepts corresponding to
the ovens in its test sample with the lowest efficiency, so that no
ovens in the test sample were cut off by the baseline curve. DOE then
set baseline standby energy consumption for conventional ovens equal to
that of the oven (including the oven component of a range) with the
highest standby energy consumption in DOE's test sample to maintain the
full functionality of controls for consumer utility. As part of the
September 2016 SNOPR, DOE proposed the baseline efficiency levels
presented in Table IV-18, which are based on an oven with a cavity
volume of 4.3 ft\3\. 81 FR 60784, 60815-60816 (Sept. 2, 2016).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.018
DOE did not receive comment on the baseline efficiency levels
considered for conventional ovens. Thus, DOE did not modify the
baseline levels for conventional ovens in this NOPD.
b. Incremental Efficiency Levels
For each product class for both conventional cooking tops and
conventional ovens, DOE analyzes several efficiency levels (``ELs'')
and determines the incremental cost at each of these levels.
Conventional Cooking Tops
For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE developed incremental efficiency
levels for each cooking top product class by first considering
information from the previous rulemaking analysis available in the 2009
TSD. In cases where DOE identified design options during testing and
reverse engineering teardowns, DOE updated the efficiency levels based
on the test data. 81 FR 60784, 60817 (Sept. 2, 2016). Table IV-19 and
Table IV-20 show the incremental efficiency levels for the electric
cooking top product classes as proposed in the September 2016 SNOPR,
including whether the efficiency level is from the 2009 TSD or based on
testing for that SNOPR.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.019
[[Page 81012]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.020
AHAM commented that the induction cooking tops in AHAM's test
sample appear to consume more energy than many of the smooth-electric
resistance models in both the DOE and AHAM datasets, which AHAM claimed
undermines DOE's estimate of the efficiency improvement due to
induction. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 21) AHAM stated that it was not clear
whether the difference between DOE and AHAM's induction test data can
be attributed to differences in how the laboratories conducted testing
or to differences in the test units themselves. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 22)
AHAM expressed concern that smooth-electric resistance cooking tops,
which perform better when the contact between the element and the pan
is optimized, may benefit more from the flat cookware specified in the
test procedure than do induction cooking tops. AHAM noted that
induction cooking tops, which induce an electromagnetic field in the
cookware itself, are not affected by contact. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 22)
To evaluate whether DOE's analysis provides an accurate
representation of the efficiency improvement associated with induction
heating elements, DOE reviewed data for 128 electric cooking tops sold
on the European market and compared the data to results from DOE's test
sample. Cooking tops sold on the European market are tested and rated
using the same basic test provisions as the DOE test procedure adopted
in the December 2016 TP Final Rule. DOE also notes that, based on
product teardowns conducted in support of the September 2016 SNOPR, the
heating elements and glass cooking surfaces used in electric smooth
cooking tops are typically purchased parts that are manufactured by
companies that produce and supply these parts to countries
worldwide.\34\ As a result, DOE believes that the comparative energy
use of smooth-electric resistance and smooth-induction cooking tops on
the European market is similar to the comparative performance of
products on the U.S. market. As demonstrated in Table IV-21, for both
smooth-electric resistance and smooth-induction cooking tops, DOE's
test data fell within the range of AEC observed for products on the
European market. For both DOE's test data and data for products on the
European market, smooth-induction cooking tops are, on average, more
efficient than smooth-electric resistance cooking tops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ DOE observed during product teardowns that many electric
smooth cooking top heating elements are supplied by E.G.O. Worldwide
(http://www.egoproducts.com/en/home/).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.021
If the test procedure provided an advantage to smooth-electric
resistance cooking tops over smooth-induction cooking tops due to the
flatness of the test vessel, DOE would expect to see similar results in
the DOE, AHAM, and European market data. However, as discussed above,
both DOE and European data indicate that smooth-induction cooking tops
consume less energy compared to smooth-electric resistance cooking
tops. Therefore, DOE believes that its test data and analysis
accurately reflect the decrease in AEC associated with a change from
electric resistance to induction heating. As a result, DOE relied on
its own test sample to estimate the average decrease in AEC due to
induction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Manufacturers selling products into the European market
publish the normalized average test energy consumption for a cooking
top. To compare EU data to DOE test data, DOE adjusted for the
differences in the normalization factors specified in EN 60350-
2:2013 and the DOE test procedure adopted in the December 2016 TP
Final Rule. DOE then calculated annual energy consumption for the
European cooking tops using the method specified in section
4.1.2.1.1 of the test procedure adopted in the December 2016 TP
Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, as discussed in section III.B of this document, DOE
updated the AEC and IAEC values for all electric smooth cooking tops in
its test sample that were equipped with multi-ring surface units
[[Page 81013]]
to reflect the test procedure adopted in the December 2016 TP Final
Rule. Accordingly, DOE updated its estimates for the efficiency
improvement due to induction for this NOPD. Additional discussion of
DOE's estimate of the energy savings attributable to induction
technology is presented in chapter 5 of the TSD for this NOPD.
AHAM expressed concern that the use of the automatic power-down
low-standby-loss electronic controls design option to reduce energy
consumption for electric smooth cooking tops is not technologically
feasible. AHAM commented that, based on the combined dataset, reducing
or eliminating standby energy consumption through the use of the
automatic power-down design option would not be sufficient to achieve
the proposed efficiency level for electric smooth cooking tops. AHAM
noted that only one induction cooking top model in the test sample
could meet the proposed level by reducing or eliminating its standby
energy consumption. Therefore, AHAM recommended that DOE adopt a less
stringent level for electric smooth cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp.
22-23)
DOE notes that AHAM's conclusion appears to be based on the max-
tech efficiency level rather than the efficiency levels associated with
low-standby-loss electronic controls that were evaluated in this NOPD.
As discussed in section IV.C.2.a of this document, DOE revised the
baseline efficiency level for electric smooth cooking tops based on the
combined dataset. DOE then applied its estimates for the decrease in
IAEC that would be expected from implementing low-standby-loss
electronic controls to the new baseline efficiency level. This resulted
in higher overall IAECs for these efficiency levels than were proposed
in the September 2016 SNOPR. With these revised efficiency levels, more
than 50 percent of electric smooth cooking tops in the combined DOE and
AHAM test sample have a measured IAEC that already meets the efficiency
level associated with automatic power-down, the most stringent
implementation of low-standby-loss electronic controls. Nonetheless, as
discussed in section V.A of this document, DOE determined that the
electric smooth cooking top efficiency level associated with the
automatic power-down low-standby-loss design option may result in a
loss in the utility of the clock display for combined cooking products.
As a result, DOE evaluated prescriptive design standards in this NOPD
for electric smooth cooking tops that would allow for a continuous
clock display, and accordingly, would not require the elimination of
clocks from products.
Table IV-22 and Table IV-23 show the efficiency levels considered
for the electric cooking top product classes. As discussed in section
IV.A.2.a and section IV.B.1.a of this document, DOE is no longer
considering improved contact conductance and halogen lamp elements as
design options for electric coil cooking tops and electric smooth
cooking tops, respectively. As a result, DOE did not analyze
incremental efficiency levels associated with these design options for
this NOPD. For electric coil cooking tops, this resulted in no
incremental efficiency levels above the baseline. Additional discussion
of DOE's analysis of the incremental efficiency levels is presented in
chapter 5 of the TSD for this NOPD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.023
Table IV-24 shows the incremental efficiency levels for the gas
cooking top product class proposed in the September 2016 SNOPR. 81 FR
60784, 60818 (Sept. 2, 2016).
[[Page 81014]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.024
As discussed in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE considered multiple
efficiency levels associated with optimized burner and grate design for
gas cooking tops. 81 FR 60784, 60817 (Sept. 2, 2016). DOE's testing
showed that energy use was correlated to burner design (e.g., grate
weight, flame angle, distance from burner ports to the cooking surface)
and could be reduced by optimizing the design of the burner and grate
system. DOE noted that cooking tops that incorporate different
combinations of burners, including high input rate burners for larger
food loads, have differing capabilities to cook or heat different sized
food loads. Based on DOE's review of the test data for the gas cooking
tops in its test sample, DOE identified three efficiency levels
associated with improving the burner and grate design that take into
account key burner configurations. Id.
DOE proposed Efficiency Level 1 based on an optimized burner and
improved grate design of the unit in the test sample with the lowest
measured IAEC among those with cast-iron grates and a six-surface unit
configuration with at least four out of the six surface units having
burner input rates exceeding 14,000 Btu/h. DOE selected these criteria
to maintain the full functionality of cooking tops marketed as
commercial-style. DOE noted that while there are some such products
with fewer than six surface units and fewer than four high input rate
burners, DOE did not observe any products marketed as residential-style
with the burner configuration DOE associated with Efficiency Level 1.
Id.
DOE proposed Efficiency Level 2 for conventional gas cooking tops
based on an optimized burner and further improved grate design of the
unit in the DOE test sample with the lowest measured IAEC among those
units with cast iron grates and at least one surface unit having a
burner input rate exceeding 14,000 Btu/h. None of the gas units in the
DOE test sample marketed as commercial-style were capable of achieving
this efficiency level. The cooking tops in the DOE test sample capable
of meeting this efficiency level were marketed as residential-style and
had significantly lighter cast iron grates than the commercial-style
units. Id.
DOE proposed Efficiency Level 3 (max-tech) based on the unit in the
DOE test sample with the lowest measured IAEC among those with cast
iron grates, regardless of the number of burners or burner input rate.
DOE noted that the grate weight for this unit was not lowest in the DOE
test sample, confirming that a fully optimized burner and grate design,
and not a reduction in grate weight alone, is required to improve
cooking top efficiency. Id.
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, AHAM agreed that DOE
should adopt standards for gas cooking tops that would ensure that
commercial-style cooking tops are not eliminated from the market.
(AHAM, No. 64 at p. 24) However, AHAM commented that there were
commercial-style products on the market at that time with up to six
high input rate burners. AHAM's test data indicated that cooking
products meeting this description were not able to meet DOE's
Efficiency Level 1 (see Table IV-24, above) as proposed in the
September 2016 SNOPR. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 25) Because DOE's proposed
standard level was designed to maintain the full functionality of
commercial-style gas cooking tops, AHAM urged DOE to propose a less
stringent level for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 28)
Sub-Zero commented that the U.S. market has evolved differently
than international markets such as Europe, which has driven
manufacturers on the U.S. market to update product designs to satisfy
consumer demand for high input rate burners. Sub-Zero commented that
for high-performance cooking tops, a range of burner input rates allows
consumers the ability to cook foods that require searing on one burner
and foods that require melting temperatures on another burner. Sub-Zero
commented that the large, massive grates complement the burner by
absorbing heat and allowing consumers more control over the
distribution of heat so that cooking vessels can be moved off of a
burner's dead-center position, but still maintain a proper food
temperature. To demonstrate evidence of the evolving commercial-style
market and how DOE's efficiency levels for gas cooking tops do not
adequately account for the utility provided by a range of burner input
rates, Sub-Zero provided the IAECs for both a model that it had
discontinued shortly before its comments (with five 15,000 Btu/h
burners and one 9,200 Btu/h burner) and the updated version of that
same model that incorporated higher input rate burners (including one
burner at 20,000 Btu/h and two at 18,000 Btu/h). Sub-Zero's test data,
presented in Table IV-25, showed that the updated model with the higher
input rate burners had a higher measured IAEC. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at pp.
3-4)
[[Page 81015]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.025
As discussed in section IV.B.1.a of this document, DOE is no longer
considering optimized burners and grate designs as a technology option
for gas cooking tops. As a result, DOE did not analyze incremental
efficiency levels associated with these design options for this NOPD.
For gas cooking tops, this resulted in no incremental efficiency levels
above the baseline.
Table IV-26 includes the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops
considered in this NOPD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.026
Conventional Ovens
For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE developed incremental efficiency
levels for each conventional oven product class by first considering
information from the previous rulemaking analysis described in the 2009
TSD. In cases where DOE identified design options during testing and
reverse engineering teardowns, DOE updated the efficiency levels based
on the tested data. 81 FR 60784, 60818 (Sept. 2, 2016). Table IV-27
through Table IV-30 present the efficiency levels for each product
class proposed in the September 2016 SNOPR, normalized based on an oven
with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft\3\.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.028
[[Page 81016]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.032
[[Page 81017]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.034
c. Relationship Between IAEC and Oven Cavity Volume
The conventional oven efficiency levels detailed above are
predicated upon baseline ovens with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft\3\. Based
on DOE's testing of conventional gas and electric ovens and discussions
with manufacturers, IAEC scales with oven cavity volume due to larger
ovens having higher thermal masses and larger volumes of air (including
larger vent rates) than smaller ovens. Because the DOE test procedure
adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule for measuring IAEC uses a fixed
test load size, larger ovens with higher thermal mass will have a
higher measured IAEC. As a result, DOE considered available data to
characterize the relationship between IAEC and oven cavity volume.
For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE established the slopes by first
evaluating the data from the previous rulemaking analysis described in
the 2009 TSD, which presented the relationship between measured energy
factor (``EF'') and cavity volume, then translating from EF to IAEC,
considering the range of cavity volumes for the majority of products
available on the market as well as testing of units in DOE's test
sample. The intercepts for each efficiency level were then chosen so
that the equations passed through the desired IAEC corresponding to a
particular volume. 81 FR 60784, 60821-60822 (Sept. 2, 2016).
As part of the NOPD analysis, DOE updated the intercepts in the
IAEC versus cavity volume relationships for each product class to
reflect the revisions to the incremental efficiency levels described in
section IV.C.2.b of this document. Table IV-35 and Table IV-36 present
the updated slopes and intercepts for the IAEC versus cavity volume
relationship for electric and gas ovens, respectively. Additional
discussion of DOE's derivation of the oven IAEC versus cavity volume
relationship is presented in chapter 5 of the TSD for this NOPD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.035
[[Page 81018]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.036
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE developed the cost-efficiency
results for each conventional cooking top product class shown in Table
IV-37. Where available, DOE developed incremental MPCs based on
manufacturing cost modeling of test units in its sample featuring the
proposed design options. For design options that were not observed in
DOE's sample of test units for this rulemaking, DOE used the
incremental manufacturing costs developed as part of the previous
rulemaking analysis described in the 2009 TSD, then adjusted the values
to reflect changes in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Producer Price
Index (``PPI'') for household cooking appliance manufacturing.\36\ 81
FR 60784, 60822 (Sept. 2, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ppi/.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.037
DOE did not receive comments on the incremental MPCs for
conventional cooking tops presented in the September 2016 SNOPR. As a
result, DOE maintained its estimates for the incremental MPCs in this
NOPD, but adjusted the cost-efficiency results to reflect updates to
parts pricing estimates and the most recent PPI data. DOE also notes
that it is no longer considering improved contact conductance for
electric coil cooking tops, halogen lamp elements for electric smooth
cooking tops, and optimized burner and grate designs for gas cooking
tops, as discussed in section IV.C.2.b of this document. As a result,
DOE updated the cost-efficiency results to reflect the revised
efficiency levels. The updated estimates for the incremental MPCs
considered in this NOPD are presented in Table IV-38.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.038
b. Conventional Ovens
As described in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE developed the cost-
efficiency results for each conventional oven product class shown in
Table IV-39. DOE noted that the estimated incremental MPCs would be
equivalent for the freestanding and built-in/slide-in oven product
classes. 81 FR 60784, 60823 (Sept. 2, 2016).
[[Page 81019]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.039
As for conventional cooking tops, DOE did not receive comments on
the incremental MPCs for conventional ovens presented in the September
2016 SNOPR. As a result, DOE maintained its estimates for the
incremental MPCs in this NOPD, but adjusted the cost-efficiency results
to reflect updates to parts pricing estimates and the most recent PPI
data. DOE also notes that it is no longer considering intermittent/
interrupted and intermittent pilot ignition systems or reduced
conduction losses as design options for conventional ovens, as
discussed in section IV.C.2.b of this document. As a result, DOE
updated the cost-efficiency results to reflect the revised efficiency
levels. The updated estimates for the incremental MPCs considered in
this NOPD are presented in Table IV-40.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.040
4. Consumer Utility
In determining whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA
requires DOE to consider ``any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered products likely to result from the
imposition of the standard.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV))
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
DOE stated in the September 2016 SNOPR that it did not believe that
the design options and efficiency levels associated with the proposed
standards would impact the consumer utility of conventional cooking
tops. DOE noted that the proposed standards for gas cooking tops
corresponded to the efficiency level that would maintain features of
gas cooking tops marketed as commercial-style, namely multiple high
input rate burners (i.e., greater than 14,000 Btu/h) that would allow
for quicker cooking times. DOE stated in the September 2016 SNOPR that
the proposed standards for gas cooking tops would not preclude the
availability of cooking tops marketed as commercial-style. 81 FR 60784,
60823 (Sept. 2, 2016).
AHAM commented that commercial-style products provide consumer
utility and incorporate certain features that are expected by
purchasers of such products such as heavier cast iron grates to support
larger, heavier loads and high input rate burners to provide faster
cooking times for such loads. According to AHAM, the heavier grates
provide additional consumer utility by retaining heat that helps
provide for even heat distribution in the cooking vessel during the
cool down/simmering phase and allows consumers to keep the cooking
vessel warm by moving the pot off center. AHAM added that heavier
grates allow for a sliding motion across burners to mix food without
dislodging the grates. AHAM commented that heavier grates also provide
increased durability and reliability over the lifetime of the product.
AHAM stated that high input rate burners allow for cooking techniques
not possible with lower burner input rates, such as flamb[eacute], wok
cooking, canning, and pressure cooking. AHAM claims that high input
rate burners also provide for a better sear on meat, which provides
better flavor and texture, due to the higher temperature. (AHAM, No. 64
at p. 24)
Spire and AHAM stated that DOE's proposed standards would likely
eliminate commercial-style gas cooking products from the market, which
Spire believes would contravene the provisions set forth for adopting
new or amended standards under section 6295(o)(4)) of EPCA. (AHAM, No.
64 at p. 27; Spire, No. 61 at p. 5)
AHAM stated that although products in Europe can be designed to
have a lower flame to reduce energy consumption, this is not possible
in the United States because the CO levels of the burner will increase
beyond the acceptable limits specified in ANSI Z21.1. (AHAM, No. 64 at
p. 28) AHAM stated that manufacturers are already incentivized to
optimize burner and
[[Page 81020]]
grate design because it is less costly to use smaller gauge metals.\37\
AHAM believes the lower material costs for lighter-weight grates
supports its point that heavier grates and higher input rate burners
offer consumer utility--if consumers did not demand these features,
manufacturers would choose the lower cost option. (AHAM, No. 64 at p.
24) Miele commented that the European market for cooking appliances
varies greatly from the product offerings in the United States. Miele
noted that gas cooking has a very small market share in Europe,
electric cooking products are most prevalent, and commercial-style
cooking products are not typically offered to residential consumers.
Miele also noted that safety standards and CO emission levels are
stricter in the United States. (Miele, No. 60 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ AHAM also commented that while reducing the gauge of the
grates reduces material cost, this does not include the retooling
costs resulting from a switch from heavier grates to lighter ones.
(AHAM, No. 64 at p. 24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For electric cooking tops, DOE conducted the engineering analysis
by considering cooking top design options that are consistent with
products currently on the U.S. market. For gas cooking tops, as
discussed in section IV.C.2.b of this document, DOE revised the
evaluated baseline efficiency level based on additional test data and
information regarding commercial-style cooking tops. As discussed in
section IV.A.1.a of this document, DOE did not consider establishing a
separate product class for commercial-style gas cooking tops, noting
that there are no clearly-defined and consistent design differences and
corresponding utility provided by commercial-style gas cooking tops as
compared to residential-style gas cooking tops. Further, as discussed
in section III.B of this document, DOE eliminated optimized burner and
grate designs from consideration as a technology option in this NOPD.
As a result, DOE has initially determined that the existing
prescriptive standards for gas cooking tops that preclude the use of
constant burning pilot lights do not warrant amendment.
b. Conventional Ovens
DOE stated in the September 2016 SNOPR that it conducted the
engineering analysis by considering design options that are consistent
with products currently on the market and that it did not believe that
any of the design options and efficiency levels considered would impact
the consumer utility of conventional ovens. 81 FR 60784, 60823. DOE
noted in the September 2016 SNOPR that it was not able to identify a
clearly-defined utility provided to consumers by commercial-style ovens
and, as a result, DOE did not establish separate product classes for
these products. However, DOE recognized that commercial-style ovens are
a product type that typically incorporate certain features that may be
expected by purchasers of such products (e.g., heavier-gauge cavity
construction, high input rate burners, and extension racks). DOE also
noted that these features result in inherently lower efficiencies for
commercial-style ovens than for residential-style ovens with comparable
cavities sizes, due to the greater thermal mass of the cavity and
racks, when measured using the test procedure adopted in the July 2015
TP Final Rule. As discussed in section III.B of this document, DOE
repealed the oven test procedure in the December 2016 TP Final Rule due
to uncertainties in its ability to measure representative energy use of
commercial-style ovens. As a result of these uncertainties, DOE did not
propose a performance-based standard for conventional ovens, but
instead proposed a prescriptive design requirement for the conventional
oven control system in the September 2016 SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 60823-
60824 (Sept. 2, 2016). DOE did not receive any comments regarding the
impact of the proposed standards on conventional ovens. For the reasons
discussed above, DOE maintains its findings from the September 2016
SNOPR that the evaluated prescriptive-based standards would not impact
the consumer utility of conventional ovens.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g.,
manufacturer markups, retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor
markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MPCs
determined in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are
then used in the LCC and PBP analysis and in the MIA. At each step in
the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to
cover business costs and profit margins.
For consumer conventional cooking products, the main parties in the
distribution chain are manufacturers, retailers, and consumers.
The manufacturer markup converts MPC to manufacturer selling price
(``MSP''). DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining
the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'') 10-K reports
filed by publicly-traded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance
manufacturing and whose combined product range includes consumer
conventional cooking products.
DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in
the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of
products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are
applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-
efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental
markup is typically less than the baseline markup, and is designed to
maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or
amended standards.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate
average baseline and incremental markups.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 2012 Annual Retail Trade Survey, Electronics and Appliance
Stores (NAICS 443). 2012. Washington, DC http://www.census.gov/retail/arts/historic_releases.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM commented that it strongly disagrees with the concept of
incremental markups. According to AHAM, manufacturers, wholesalers,
retailers and contractors have all provided numerous amounts of data,
studies, and surveys saying that the incremental markup concept has no
foundation in actual practice. AHAM asked what additional information
DOE would need to reassess the markups approach. AHAM further asked if
DOE would agree to put the concept of incremental markups up for peer
review. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 31) AHAM stated that DOE persists in
relying on a simplistic interpretation of economic theory that assumes
only variable costs can be passed through to customers because economic
returns on capital cannot increase in a competitive marketplace.
According to AHAM, it and the other associations and industry
participants take the position that DOE's conclusions are incorrect and
that percentage margins throughout the distribution channels have
remained largely constant. In addition, AHAM asserted that Shorey
Consulting has shown that empirical studies of industry structure and
other variables have only weak correlation with profitability,
demonstrating that the economic theory DOE relies upon is proven not to
apply in practice. AHAM commented that DOE should submit both its work
and that of the various industry groups to an
[[Page 81021]]
independent peer review process. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 31)
DOE disagrees that the theory behind the concept of incremental
markups has been disproved. The concept is based on a simple notion: an
increase in profitability, which is implied by keeping a fixed markup
percentage when the product price goes up, is not likely to be viable
over time in a business that is reasonably competitive. DOE agrees that
empirical data on markup practices would be desirable, but such
information is closely held and difficult to obtain.
Regarding the Shorey Consulting interviews with appliance
retailers, although the retailers said that they maintained the same
percentage margin after amended standards for refrigerators took
effect, it is not clear to what extent the wholesale prices of
refrigerators actually increased. There is some empirical evidence
indicating that prices may not always increase following a new
standard.40 41 42 If this happened to be the case following
the new refrigerator standard, then there is no reason to suppose that
percentage margins changed either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Spurlock, C. A. 2013. ``Appliance Efficiency Standards and
Price Discrimination.'' Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report
LBNL-6283E.
\41\ Houde, S. and C. A. Spurlock. 2015. ``Do Energy Efficiency
Standards Improve Quality? Evidence from a Revealed Preference
Approach.'' Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL-
182701.
\42\ Taylor, M., C. A. Spurlock, and H.-C. Yang. 2015.
``Confronting Regulatory Cost and Quality Expectations: An
Exploration of Technical Change in Minimum Efficiency Performance
Standards.'' Resources for the Future (RFF) 15-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's analysis necessarily considers a simplified version of the
world of appliance retailing; namely, a situation in which other than
appliance product offerings, nothing changes in response to amended
standards. DOE's analysis assumes that product cost will increase while
the other costs remain constant (i.e., no change in labor, material, or
operating costs), and asks whether retailers will be able to keep the
same markup percentage over time. DOE recognizes that retailers are
likely to seek to maintain the same markup percentage on appliances if
the price they pay goes up as a result of appliance standards, but DOE
contends that over time downward adjustments are likely to occur due to
competitive pressures. Some retailers may find that they can gain sales
by reducing the markup and maintaining the same per-unit gross profit
as they had before the new standard took effect. Additionally, DOE
contends that retail pricing is more complicated than a simple
percentage margin or markup. Retailers undertake periodic sales and
they reduce the prices of older models as new models come out to
replace them.43 44 45 Even if retailers maintain the same
percent markup when appliance wholesale prices increase as the result
of a standard, retailers may respond to competitive pressures and
revert to pre-standard average per-unit profits by holding more
frequent sales, discounting products under promotion to a greater
extent, or discounting older products more quickly. These factors would
counteract the higher percentage markup on average, resulting in much
the same effect as a lower percentage markup in terms of the prices
consumers actually face on average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Bagwell, K. and Riordan, M.H., 1991. ``High and declining
prices signal product quality.'' The American Economic Review, pp.
224-239.
\44\ Betts, E. and Peter, J.M., 1995. ``The strategy of the
retail `sale': typology, review and synthesis.'' International
Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 5(3), pp. 303-
331.
\45\ Elmaghraby, W. and Keskinocak, P., 2003. ``Dynamic pricing
in the presence of inventory considerations: Research overview,
current practices, and future directions.'' Management Science,
49(10), pp. 1287-1309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE acknowledges that its approach to estimating retailer markup
practices after amended standards take effect is an approximation of
real-world practices that are both complex and varying with business
conditions. However, DOE continues to maintain that its assumption that
standards do not facilitate a sustainable increase in profitability is
reasonable.
Chapter 6 of the TSD for this NOPD provides details on DOE's
development of markups for consumer conventional cooking products.
E. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of consumer conventional cooking products at
different efficiencies in representative U.S. single-family homes, and
multi-family residences, and to assess the energy savings potential of
increased cooking product efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates
the range of energy use of consumer conventional cooking products in
the field (i.e., as they are actually used by consumers) at the
considered efficiency levels. DOE uses these values in the LCC and PBP
analyses and in the NIA to establish the savings in consumer operating
costs at various product efficiency levels. DOE developed energy
consumption estimates for all product classes analyzed in the
engineering analysis.
For this analysis, DOE used the 2009 California Residential
Appliance Saturation Survey (``RASS'') \46\ and a Florida Solar Energy
Center (``FSEC'') study \47\ to establish representative annual energy
use values for conventional cooking tops and ovens. These studies
confirmed that annual cooking energy use has been consistently
declining since the late 1970s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ California Energy Commission, Residential Appliance
Saturation Survey (RASS) (2009).
\47\ Parker, D., Fairey, P., Hendron, R., ``Updated
Miscellaneous Electricity Loads and Appliance Energy Usage Profiles
for Use in Home Energy Ratings, the Building America Benchmark
Procedures and Related Calculations,'' Florida Solar Energy Center
(FSEC) (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy use by consumer conventional cooking products varies greatly
based on consumer usage patterns. DOE established a range of energy use
from data in the Energy Information Administration (``EIA'')'s 2015
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS 2015'').\48\ RECS 2015
does not provide the annual energy consumption of cooking products, but
it does provide the frequency of cooking product use.\49\ DOE was
unable to use the frequency of use to calculate the annual energy
consumption using a bottom-up approach, as data in RECS did not include
information about the duration of a cooking event to allow for an
annual energy use calculation. DOE therefore relied on California RASS
and FSEC studies to establish the average annual energy consumption of
conventional cooking tops and ovens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2015 RECS
Survey Data (2017) (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/). RECS 2015 is based on a sample of 5,686
households statistically selected to represent 118.2 million housing
units in the United States.
\49\ DOE was unable to use the frequency of use to calculate the
annual energy consumption using a bottom-up approach, as data in
RECS did not include information about the duration of a cooking
event to allow for an annual energy use calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From RECS 2015, DOE developed household samples for each product
class. For each household using a consumer conventional cooking
product, RECS provides data on the frequency of use and number of meals
cooked in the following bins: (1) Less than once per week, (2) once per
week, (3) a few times per week, (4) once per day, (5) two times per
day, and (6) three or more times per day. DOE utilized the frequency of
use to define the variability of the annual energy consumption. First,
DOE assumed that the weighted-average cooking frequency from RECS
represents the average energy use values based on the California RASS
and FSEC studies. DOE then varied the annual energy consumption across
the RECS households based on their reported
[[Page 81022]]
cooking frequency relative to the weighted-average cooking frequency.
Since there were no comments on DOE's approach to developing the
energy use analysis, DOE retained the approach used for this NOPD.
Chapter 7 of the TSD for this NOPD describes the energy use analysis
for consumer conventional cooking products in detail.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking products. The effect of new or amended
energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves
a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE
used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
The LCC (life-cycle cost) is the total consumer expense of
an appliance or product over the life of that product, consisting of
total installed cost (MSP, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and
installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use,
maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts
future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the
lifetime of the product.
The PBP (payback period) is the estimated amount of time
(in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost
(including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in
purchase cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual
operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed
to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the
estimated efficiency distribution of cooking products in the absence of
new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for
a given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of
housing units. As stated previously, DOE developed household samples
from the 2015 RECS. For each sample household, DOE determined the
energy consumption for the cooking product and the appropriate
electricity price. By developing a representative sample of households,
the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy
prices associated with the use of consumer conventional cooking
products.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to
the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created
distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales
taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their
uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP, which
incorporates Crystal Ball\TM\ (a commercially-available software
program), relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty
and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly
sample input values from the probability distributions and cooking
product user samples. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for products
at each efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per simulation run.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of conventional
cooking products as if each were to purchase a new product in the
expected first year of required compliance with new or amended
standards. Any amended standards would apply to cooking products
manufactured 3 years after the date on which any new or amended
standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) Therefore, DOE used
2023 as the first full year of compliance with any amended standards
for consumer conventional cooking products.
Table IV-41 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8
of the TSD for this NOPD and its appendices.
[[Page 81023]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.041
1. Product Cost
To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described in
section IV.D of this document (along with sales taxes). DOE used
different markups for baseline products and higher-efficiency products,
because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP
associated with higher-efficiency products. DOE assumed that the
product costs would be the same in the compliance year as at the time
of this analysis.
2. Installation Cost
Installation costs include labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the product. For this evaluation,
DOE used data from the 2015 RS Means Residential Cost Data on labor
requirements to estimate installation costs for consumer conventional
cooking products.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ RS Means Company Inc., RS Means Residential Cost Data
(2015) (Available at http://rsmeans.reedconstructiondata.com/default.aspx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, DOE estimated that installation costs would be the same
for different efficiency levels. In the case of electric smooth cooking
tops, the induction heating design option requires a change of cookware
to those that are ferromagnetic to operate the cooking tops. DOE
treated this as additional installation cost for this particular design
option. DOE used average number of pots and pans utilized by a
representative household and average retail price of induction-
compatible cooking utensils to estimate this portion of the
installation cost. AHAM requested DOE to provide details on how the
cost required to change cookware when purchasing an induction cooking
top was obtained. The comment specifically requested details regarding
the approach used for estimating the average number of pots and pans to
be replaced, as well as the retail average price of an induction-
compatible utensil. AHAM also suggested that DOE investigate consumers'
cost of upgrading their wiring to ensure necessary amperes are directed
to the cooking activity without compromising power to other areas of
the home. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 31-32) For the September 2016 SNOPR as
well as the updated analysis in this proposal, DOE utilized the Willem
et al. study to determine the average number of pots and pans to be
replaced.\51\ With regard to those consumers who may need to upgrade
the electrical wiring to accommodate for higher amperage, DOE did not
have information about the existing amperage of the electrical circuit
of the consumer population. In order to be representative of the
consumer population in this NOPD, DOE estimated an average additional
cost based on the assumption that 50 percent of the user population may
need upgrades and 50 percent may not, using the wiring cost contained
in 2015 RS Means Mechanical Cost Data. See chapter 8 of the TSD for
this NOPD for details about this component. Given the installation
costs of the induction cooking top, the market share is expected to
remain at 1.6 percent in the standards case in the year 2023. See
section IV.F.9 and section IV.H.1 of this document for details on the
market shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Willem, H. et al. 2015. ``Understanding Cooking Behavior in
U.S. Households.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 81024]]
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy consumption
for a cooking product at different efficiency levels using the approach
described above in section IV.E of this document.
4. Energy Prices
DOE used average prices (for baseline products) and marginal prices
(for higher-efficiency products) which vary by season, region, and
baseline electricity consumption level for the LCC. DOE derived
marginal residential electricity and natural gas prices for 27
geographic areas.\52\ Marginal prices are appropriate for determining
energy cost savings associated with possible changes to efficiency
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ DOE characterized the geographic distribution into 27
geographic areas to be consistent with the 27 States and group of
States reported in RECS 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For electricity, DOE derived marginal and average prices which vary
by season, region, and baseline electricity consumption level. DOE
estimated these prices using data published with the Edison Electric
Institute (``EEI''), Typical Bill and Average Rates reports for summer
and winter 2018.\53\ For the residential sector each report provides,
for most of the major investor-owned utilities (``IOUs'') in the
country, the total bill assuming household consumption levels of 500,
750, and 1,000 kWh for the billing period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Edison Electric Institute. Typical Bills and Average Rates
Report. Winter 2018 published January 2018, Summer 2018 published
July 2018. Available at: http://www.eei.org/resourcesandmedia/products/Pages/Products.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the residential sector, DOE defined the average price as the
ratio of the total bill to the total electricity consumption. DOE also
used the EEI data to define a marginal price as the ratio of the change
in the bill to the change in energy consumption. DOE first calculated
weighted-average values for each geographic area for each type of
price. Each EEI utility in an area was assigned a weight based on the
number of consumers it serves. Consumer counts were taken from the most
recent EIA Form 861 data (2018).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration. Form EIA-861 Annual Electric Power Industry
Database. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE assigned seasonal average prices to each household in the LCC
sample based on its location and its baseline monthly electricity
consumption for an average summer or winter month. For sampled
households who were assigned a product efficiency greater than or equal
to the considered level for a standard in the no-new-standards case,
DOE assigned marginal price to each household based on its location and
the decremented electricity consumption. In the LCC sample, households
could be assigned to one of 27 geographic areas.
DOE obtained data for calculating prices of natural gas from the
EIA publication, Natural Gas Navigator.\55\ DOE used the complete
annual data for 2017 to calculate an average annual price for each
geographic area. (For use in the LCC model, prices were scaled to
2018$.) For each State, DOE calculated the annual residential price of
natural gas using a simple average of data. DOE then calculated a price
for each geographic area, weighting each State in an area by its number
of households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Natural Gas Navigator. 2014. (Last accessed
September 26, 2016.) http://eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The method used to calculate marginal natural gas prices differs
from that used to calculate electricity prices, because EIA does not
provide consumer- or utility-level data on gas consumption and prices.
EIA provides historical monthly natural gas consumption and
expenditures by State. This data was used to determine 10-year average
marginal price factors for the geographical areas. These factors are
then used to convert average monthly energy prices into marginal
monthly energy prices. Because cooking products operate all year
around, DOE determined summer and winter marginal price factors.
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the
average regional energy prices by projections of annual change in
national-average residential energy found in AEO 2019.\56\ AEO 2019 has
an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE used the
average annual rate of change in prices from 2030 through 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2019 with Projections to 2050.
Washington, DC. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Chapter 8 of the TSD for this NOPD for more information on the
derivation of energy prices.
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product
components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Typically,
small incremental increases in product efficiency produce no, or only
minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline
efficiency products.
For all electric cooking products, DOE did not include any changes
in maintenance and repair for products more efficient than baseline
products.
Spire stated that DOE did not provide explanation as to why
Electrolux's comment regarding glo-bar repair frequency was ignored.
(Spire, No. 61 at p. 6-7). In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE determined
the repair and maintenance costs associated with different types of
ignition systems for gas ovens. Utilizing inputs from interested
parties, including Electrolux, along with the earlier data from
manufacturers, DOE revised the average repair cost attributable to glo-
bar and electronic spark ignition systems and annualized it over the
life of the unit for glo-bar and electronic spark ignition systems. 81
FR 60784, 60827. For this rule, taking into account manufacturer inputs
and test data for standard and self-clean gas ovens, DOE revised the
efficiency levels, and electronic spark ignition has been eliminated in
the considered levels (see section IV.C of this document). The issue of
frequency of repair of glo-bar is therefore no longer relevant.
Based on input from manufacturers, DOE did not include maintenance
costs for glo-bars.
See chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this NOPD for further
information regarding repair and maintenance costs.
6. Product Lifetime
Equipment lifetime is the age at which the equipment is retired
from service. In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE revised the average
lifetime estimates based on data provided by AHAM, thereby establishing
average product lifetime of 16 years for all electric cooking products
and 13 years for all gas cooking products. 81 FR 60784, 60827. AHAM
provided further detail on the average useful life by product
categories, such as electric range, gas range, wall oven, and electric
cooking top. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 32) Utilizing this detail and the
market shares of these product categories, DOE fine-tuned the average
lifetime estimates to a more representative 16.8 years for all electric
cooking products and 14.5 years for all gas cooking products. DOE
characterized the product lifetimes with Weibull probability
distributions.
See chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this NOPD for further details
on the sources used to develop product lifetimes, as well as the use of
Weibull distribution.
7. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate
to households to estimate the present
[[Page 81025]]
value of future operating costs. DOE estimated a distribution of
residential discount rates for cooking products based on consumer
financing costs and the opportunity cost of consumer funds.
DOE applies weighted-average discount rates calculated from
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount
rates.\57\ DOE notes that the LCC does not analyze the appliance
purchase decision, so the implicit discount rate is not relevant in
this model. The LCC estimates net present value over the lifetime of
the product, so the appropriate discount rate will reflect the general
opportunity cost of household funds, taking this time scale into
account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC, the
application of a marginal interest rate associated with an initial
source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase,
consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt and asset
holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the restrictions
consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the relative size
of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the
aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical distribution
of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the
influence of several factors: Transaction costs, risk premiums and
response to uncertainty, time preferences, interest rates at which a
consumer is able to borrow or lend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances \58\
(``SCF'') for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. Using
the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for
each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that
may apply in the year in which amended standards would take effect. DOE
assigned each sample household a specific discount rate drawn from one
of the distributions. The average rate across all types of household
debt and equity and income groups, weighted by the shares of each type,
is 4.2 percent. See chapter 8 of the TSD for this NOPD for further
details on the development of consumer discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances
1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected
distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-
standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy
conservation standards).
To estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a
potential energy conservation standard at a particular efficiency
level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected distribution (market
shares) of product efficiencies in the no-new-standards case (i.e., the
case without amended or new energy conservation standards). This
approach reflects the fact that some consumers may purchase products
with efficiencies greater than the baseline levels.
To establish the current efficiency distribution for electric
cooking products and conventional gas ovens, DOE developed and
implemented a consumer-choice model \59\ that assumes most consumers
(i.e., home owners \60\) are sensitive to the appliance first cost, and
calculates the market share for available efficiency options based on
the initial cost of electric cooking products and gas ovens at each
efficiency level. DOE used a logit model to characterize historical
shipments as a function of purchase price. In order to develop the
logit model, DOE utilized shipments data collected by Market Research
Magazine \61\ and the PPI of household cooking appliance manufacturing
\62\ in the years 2002-2012, along with the consumer purchase price
derived from the engineering analysis, to analyze factors that
influence consumer purchasing decisions. Using this model, DOE found
that historical shipments show a strong dependence on the first costs
for electric cooking products and conventional gas ovens, and developed
the best-fit logit parameters to capture this relationship. DOE then
used the parameters to derive the market share for available efficiency
options for home owners. Given that landlords generally have little
incentive to install higher-efficiency products. DOE assigned the
purchases of renters in the RECS sample to the baseline efficiency
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ DOE developed this consumer choice model for this proposed
determination, the details of which are outlined in chapter 8 of the
TSD for this NOPD. This consumer choice framework has been used in
many rulemakings and is also a key component in EIA's NEMS
residential model to simulate appliance purchases over a range of
efficiencies.
\60\ DOE assumed that landlords would have no economic incentive
to purchase higher-efficiency products and renters would have no
decision-making power to purchase or replace an electric cooking
product or gas oven.
\61\ UBM Canon, Market Research Magazine: Appliance Historical
Statistical Review, 2014.
\62\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Index
Industry Data: Household cooking appliance manufacturing, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish the current efficiency distribution for gas cooking
tops, DOE relied on publicly available data on gas cooking top models
in the market \63\ and their configuration with regard to grates and
burner input rates to characterize the efficiency distribution. Given
the lack of data on historic efficiency trends, DOE assumed that the
estimated current distributions would apply in 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Model data collected from the websites of AJ Madison, Best
Buy, and Lowe's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV-42, Table IV-43, and Table IV-44 present the market shares
of the efficiency levels in the no-new-standards case for consumer
conventional cooking products.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ For the conventional oven product classes, the efficiency
levels are based on an oven with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft\3\. As
discussed in section IV.C.2.c of this document, DOE developed slopes
and intercepts to characterize the relationship between IEAC and
cavity volume for each efficiency level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 81026]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.044
See chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this NOPD for further
information regarding no-new-standards efficiency distribution.
9. Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to
recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient products,
compared to baseline products, through energy cost savings. Payback
periods are expressed in years.
[[Page 81027]]
Payback periods that exceed the life of the product mean that the
increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating
expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the
change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. The
PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that
discount rates are not needed.
As noted above, EPCA, as amended, establishes a rebuttable
presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary
finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product
complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than
three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from
the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE
determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test
procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price
projection for the year in which compliance with the new or amended
standards would be required.
G. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation
standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\65\
The shipments model takes an accounting approach, tracking market
shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the stock.
Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age
distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The age
distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to
calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for any
year depend on the age distribution of the stock. The shipment
projections are based on historical data and an analysis of key market
drivers for each product. For conventional cooking products, DOE
accounted for three market segments: (1) New construction, (2) existing
homes (i.e., replacing failed products), and (3) retired but not
replaced products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine new construction shipments, DOE used a forecast of new
housing coupled with product market saturation data for new housing.
For new housing completions and mobile home placements, DOE adopted the
projections from EIA's AEO 2019 through 2052. The market saturation
data for new housing came from RECS 2015.
DOE estimated replacements using product retirement functions
developed from product lifetimes. DOE used retirement functions based
on Weibull distributions.
To reconcile the historical shipments with the model, DOE assumed
that every retired unit is not replaced. DOE attributed the reason for
this non-replacement to building demolition occurring over the period
2013-2052. The not-replaced rate is distributed across electric and gas
cooking products.
DOE allocated shipments to each product class based on the current
market share of the class. DOE developed the market shares based on
data collected from Appliance Magazine Market Research report \66\ and
U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review.\67\ The shares are kept
constant over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Appliance Magazine Market Research. The U.S. Appliance
Industry: Market Value, Life Expectancy & Replacement Picture 2012.
\67\ Appliance 2011. U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review:
2000 to YTD 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not estimate any fuel switching for electric and gas
cooking products, as no significant switching was observed from
historical data.
Table IV-45 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive the
inputs to the shipments analysis for this NOPD.
[[Page 81028]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.045
DOE considered the impact of prospective standards on product
shipments. DOE concluded that it is unlikely that the price would
increase due to the considered standards would impact the decision to
install a cooking product in the new construction market. In the
replacement market, DOE assumed that, in response to an increased
product price, some consumers will choose to repair their old cooking
product and extend its lifetime instead of replacing it immediately.
DOE estimated the magnitude of such impact through a purchase price
elasticity of demand. The estimated price elasticity of -0.367 is based
on data for cooking products as described in appendix 9A of the TSD for
this NOPD. This elasticity relates the repair or replace decision to
the incremental installed cost of higher efficiency cooking products.
DOE estimated that the average extension of life of the repaired unit
would be 5 years, before the unit would be replaced with a new cooking
unit.
AGA and APGA stated that DOE failed to assess the potential for
fuel switching from natural gas to electric cooking products as a
result of a conservation standard. (AGA and APGA, No. 68 at p. 3)
Because DOE is proposing standards for both electric and natural gas
appliances, any increase in the price of the appliance would impact
cooking products of both fuel types. As switching typically includes
additional installation costs for accessing the new fuel source (e.g.,
installation of a gas line for gas appliances and installation of
electrical lines for electrical appliances), which would outweigh the
incremental change in equipment price, DOE determined that fuel
switching would not occur.
For further details on the shipments analysis, please refer to
chapter 9 of the TSD for this NOPD.
H. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of
total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from
new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\68\
(``Consumer'' in this context refers to consumers of the product being
regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard
levels considered based on projections of annual product shipments,
along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data
from the energy use and LCC analyses.\69\ For the present analysis, DOE
projected the energy savings, operating cost savings, product costs,
and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of conventional cooking
products sold from 2023 through 2052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 States and U.S.
territories.
\69\ For the NIA, DOE adjusts the installed cost data from the
LCC analysis to exclude sales tax, which is a transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each
product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation
standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in
efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of
efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with
projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE
adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels
(i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) for that class. For the standards
cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the
market shares of products with efficiencies greater than the standard.
[[Page 81029]]
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and
the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities
within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values
(as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
The NIA calculations are based on the annual energy consumption and
total installed cost data from the energy use analysis and the LCC
analysis. DOE projected the lifetime energy savings, energy cost
savings, equipment costs, and NPV of customer benefits for each product
class over the lifetime of equipment sold from 2023 through 2052.
Table IV-46 summarizes the key inputs for the NIA. The sections
following provide further details, as does chapter 10 of the TSD for
this NOPD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.046
1. Product Efficiency Trends
A key component of DOE's estimates of NES and NPV is the energy
efficiencies forecasted over time. Section IV.F.8 of this document
describes how DOE developed an energy efficiency distribution for the
no-new-standards case (which yields a shipment weighted-average
efficiency) for each of the considered product classes for the year of
anticipated compliance with an amended or new standard. For the no-new-
standards case, DOE utilized the consumer choice model (in combination
with the equipment price projection (as described in section IV.F.1 of
this document) to determine the efficiencies in each future year, for
conventional electric cooking products and gas ovens. For conventional
gas cooking tops, DOE relied on manufacturer inputs, model-based market
distribution available from retail websites. The approach is further
described in chapter 10 of the TSD for this NOPD.
For the standards cases, DOE assumed that equipment efficiencies in
the no-new-standards case that do not meet the standard level under
consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard level, and
market shares at efficiencies above the standard level under
consideration will shift based on the consumer choice model.
2. National Energy Savings
The NES analysis involves a comparison of national energy
consumption of the considered products between each potential standards
case (TSL) and the case with no new or amended energy conservation
standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by
multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or
age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated
annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for
the no-new-standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case.
DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site
[[Page 81030]]
energy and converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary
energy (i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to generate site
electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from AEO 2019.
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the
timeframe of the analysis.
Use of higher-efficiency products is occasionally associated with a
direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of
the product due to the increase in efficiency. DOE did not find any
data on the rebound effect specific to cooking products. The calculated
NES at each efficiency level therefore remains unimpacted by rebound
effect. DOE does not include the rebound effect in the NPV analysis
because it reasons that the increased service from greater use of the
product has an economic value that is reflected in the value of the
foregone energy savings.
In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences,
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and
emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the
approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a
statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination
that EIA's National Energy Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most
appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for
that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain,
multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \70\
that EIA uses to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors
incorporate losses in production and delivery in the case of natural
gas (including fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to
produce and deliver the various fuels used by power plants. The
approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use and emissions is
described in appendix 10A of the TSD for this NOPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV-47 through Table IV-51 present the FFC equivalent of IAEC
for the considered efficiency levels.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.048
[[Page 81031]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.051
3. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers are: (1) Total annual installed cost, (2)
total annual operating costs, and (3) a discount factor to calculate
the present value of costs and savings. DOE calculates net savings each
year as the difference between the no-new-standards case and each
standards case in terms of total savings in operating costs versus
total increases in installed costs. DOE calculates operating cost
savings over the lifetime of each product shipped during the projection
period.
DOE assumed that consumer product costs for conventional cooking
products would remain unchanged over the analysis period.
The operating cost savings are energy cost savings accounting for
associated repair and maintenance costs, which are calculated using the
estimated energy savings in each year and the projected price of the
appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy prices in future years,
DOE used projections of annual national-average residential energy
price changes from AEO 2019 (see section IV.F.4 for details). To
estimate price trends after 2050, DOE used the average annual rate of
change in prices from 2030 through 2050. DOE also analyzed scenarios
that used inputs from cases that have lower and higher energy price
trends. NIA results based on these cases are presented in appendix 10C
of the TSD for this NOPD.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this
NOPD, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent
and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in
accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development of
[[Page 81032]]
regulatory analysis.\71\ The discount rates for the determination of
NPV are in contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis,
which are designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. The 7-percent
real value is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to
private capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value
represents the ``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at
which society discounts future consumption flows to their present
value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
DOE conducted an MIA for consumer conventional cooking products to
estimate the financial impacts of analyzed new and amended energy
conservation standards on manufacturers of consumer conventional
cooking products. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative
aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA relies on the GRIM, an
industry cash-flow model customized for the consumer conventional
cooking products covered in this proposed determination. The key GRIM
inputs are data on the industry cost structure, MPCs, and shipments; as
well as assumptions about manufacturer markups and manufacturer
conversion costs. The key MIA output is INPV. The GRIM calculates
annual cash flows using standard accounting principles. DOE used the
GRIM to compare changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and
various TSLs (the standards cases). The difference in INPV between the
no-new-standards case and the standards cases represents the financial
impact of potential new and amended energy conservation standards on
consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers. Different sets of
assumptions (manufacturer markup scenarios) produce different INPV
results. The qualitative part of the MIA addresses factors such as
manufacturing capacity; characteristics of, and impacts on, any
particular subgroup of manufacturers, including small manufacturers;
the cumulative regulatory burden placed on consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers; and any impacts on competition.
2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs
DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flows over time
due to potential new and amended energy conservation standards. These
changes in cash flows result in either a higher or lower INPV for the
standards cases compared to the no-new-standards case. The GRIM uses a
standard annual cash-flow analysis that incorporates MPCs, manufacturer
markups, shipments, and industry financial information as inputs. It
then models changes in MPCs, investments, and manufacturer margins that
may result from analyzed new and amended energy conservation standards.
The GRIM uses these inputs to calculate a series of annual cash flows
beginning with the reference year of the analysis, 2019, and continuing
to the terminal year of the analysis, 2052. DOE computes INPV by
summing the stream of annual discounted cash flows during the analysis
period. DOE used a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, the same discount
rate used in the September 2016 SNOPR, for consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers in this NOPD. Many of the GRIM inputs
come from the engineering analysis, the shipments analysis,
manufacturer interviews, and other research conducted during the MIA.
The major GRIM inputs are described in detail in the following
sections.
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
Manufacturing more efficient consumer conventional cooking products
is more expensive than manufacturing baseline products due to the need
for more complex and costly components. The higher MPCs for these more
efficient products can affect the revenues, gross margins, and cash
flow of the industry, making these product costs key inputs for the
GRIM and the MIA.
In the MIA, DOE used the MPCs calculated in the engineering
analysis, as described in section IV.C of this document and further
detailed in chapter 5 of the TSD for this NOPD. For this NOPD analysis,
DOE updated the MPCs used in the September 2016 SNOPR analysis based on
comments received from interested parties and additional research. The
MIA stated these values in 2018 dollars, as opposed to the September
2016 SNOPR's 2015 dollar values. DOE used these updated MPCs for this
NOPD analysis.
b. Shipments Projections
INPV, the key GRIM output, depends on industry revenue, which
depends on the quantity and prices of consumer conventional cooking
products shipped in each year of the analysis period. Industry revenue
calculations require forecasts of: (1) Total annual shipment volume of
consumer conventional cooking products, (2) the distribution of
shipments across the product classes (because prices vary by product
class), and (3) the distribution of shipments across efficiency levels
(because prices vary with efficiency).
DOE updated the shipments analysis for this NOPD analysis to
reflect new historical statistics, updated AEO 2019 values, and the
elimination of certain efficiency levels, due to comments and data
provided by interested parties in response to the September 2016 SNOPR.
The MIA used these updated shipments for this NOPD analysis. For a
complete description of the shipments, see the shipments analysis
discussion in section IV.G of this document and chapter 9 of the TSD
for this NOPD.
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
DOE expects the analyzed new and amended consumer conventional
cooking product energy conservation standards would cause manufacturers
to incur conversion costs to bring their production facilities and
product designs into compliance with potential new and amended
standards. For the MIA, DOE classified these conversion costs into two
groups: (1) Capital conversion costs and (2) product conversion costs.
Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and
equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities
so new product designs can be fabricated and assembled. Product
conversion costs are investments in research, development, testing,
marketing, certification, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to
make product designs comply with potential new and amended standards.
In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur
between the year of publication of the final rule and the year by which
manufacturers must comply with the potential new and amended standards.
Product conversion costs depend on the per-model costs associated with
redesigning non-compliant models into compliant ones and then re-
testing and marketing those newly compliant models. Product conversion
costs also depend on the number of models estimated to require a
redesign. DOE used the efficiency distribution of shipments calculated
in the shipment analysis as an input to estimate the number of models
that would not meet an analyzed efficiency level. As discussed in
section IV.I.2.b of this document, shipments were updated as part of
this NOPD, and these new shipment efficiency distributions were
[[Page 81033]]
used to calculate the product conversion costs used in this NOPD MIA.
The updated efficiency distribution increased the product
conversion costs at most efficiency levels for most product classes.
Additionally, Felix Storch commented that DOE overlooked a number of
consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers that sell products
in the United States in its manufacturer list. (Felix Storch, No. 62 at
p. 2) DOE revisited the list of potential manufacturers and total
number of covered models offered by these manufacturers. As a result,
DOE added three manufacturers to its list of manufacturers of covered
products. DOE also increased the number of covered models due to this
updated manufacturer list. This caused capital and product conversion
costs to increase due to the addition of more manufacturers and more
covered models.
DOE notes that while the conversion costs for most efficiency
levels increased from the September 2016 SNOPR to this NOPD, the TSLs
used in this NOPD generally comprise lower efficiency levels than the
TSLs used in the September 2016 SNOPR, causing the conversion costs at
most TSLs to decrease from the September 2016 SNOPR to this NOPD. DOE
also represented these conversion costs in 2018 dollars, as opposed to
the September 2016 SNOPR's 2015 dollar values. Overall, although the
conversion costs used in this NOPD analysis differ from those used in
the September 2016 SNOPR MIA, the methodology, per-model conversion
costs, and per-manufacturer conversion costs used to calculate
conversion costs remain the same as those used in the September 2016
SNOPR.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ MIA conversion cost estimates and INPV results from the
September 2016 SNOPR can be found at 81 FR 60874, 60851 (Sept. 2,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conversion cost estimates used in the GRIM can be found in
section V.B.2.a of this document. For additional information on the
estimated capital and product conversion costs, see chapter 11 of the
TSD for this NOPD.
d. Markup Scenarios
As discussed in section IV.I.2.a of this document, the MPCs for
consumer conventional cooking products are the manufacturers' costs for
those units. These costs include materials, direct labor, depreciation,
and overhead, which are collectively referred to as the cost of goods
sold. The MSP is the price received by consumer conventional cooking
product manufacturers from the first sale of those products, typically
to a distributor, regardless of the downstream distribution channel
through which the consumer conventional cooking products are ultimately
sold. The MSP is not the price the end-user pays for consumer
conventional cooking products because there are typically multiple
sales along the distribution chain and various markups applied to each
sale. The MSP equals the MPC multiplied by the manufacturer markup. The
manufacturer markup covers all the consumer conventional cooking
product manufacturer's non-production costs (i.e., selling, general,
and administrative expenses; research and development; and interest) as
well as profit. Total industry revenue for consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers equals the MSPs at each efficiency level
multiplied by the number of shipments at that efficiency level for all
product classes.
Modifying the manufacturer markups in the standards cases yields a
different set of impacts on consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers than in the no-new-standards case. For the MIA, DOE
modeled two standards case manufacturer markup scenarios for consumer
conventional cooking products to represent the uncertainty regarding
the potential impacts on MSPs and profitability for consumer
conventional cooking product manufacturers following the implementation
of potential new and amended energy conservation standards. The two
manufacturer markup scenarios are: (1) a preservation of gross margin
markup scenario and (2) a preservation of operating profit markup
scenario. Each scenario leads to different manufacturer markup values,
which, when applied to the MPCs derived in the engineering analysis,
result in varying revenue and cash-flow impacts on consumer
conventional cooking product manufacturers.
DOE modeled two manufacturer markup scenarios to represent the
upper and lower bounds of MSPs and profitability following potential
new and amended standards. The preservation of gross margin markup
scenario represents the best-case scenario for manufacturers. DOE
recognizes that manufacturers may not be able to mark up the additional
cost of production in the standards cases, given the competitive
consumer conventional cooking products market. Therefore, DOE also
modeled a preservation of operating profit markup scenario to represent
a lower bound on profitability for manufacturers. While DOE used the
same markup scenarios in this NOPD MIA that were used in the September
2016 SNOPR analysis, the manufacturer markup values of the preservation
of operating profit depend on the efficiency distribution of shipments
calculated in the shipments analysis. As discussed in section IV.I.2.b
of this document, shipments were updated and these new efficiency
distributions were used to calculate manufacturer markups in the
preservation of operating profit manufacturer markup scenario.
Therefore, the manufacturer markups used in the preservation of
operating profit scenario in this NOPD analysis differ slightly from
those used in the September 2016 SNOPR MIA. However, the methodology
used to calculate those manufacturer markup values remains the same.
3. Discussion of Comments
a. Discount Rate
Spire commented that the assumption of low discount rates works
against the natural gas-fuel appliance industry and indicates a pattern
of bias that does not comport with DOE's statutory obligations. (Spire,
No. 61 at p. 7) DOE uses the weighted-average cost of capital in
conjunction with the capital asset pricing model to calculate the
industry discount rate. DOE calculated an industry discount rate of 9.1
percent using this standard accounting practice and financial data from
publicly traded consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers.
DOE then verified this estimated industry discount rate with
manufacturers during manufacturer interviews. DOE also notes that the
industry discount rate used in the GRIM is a real discount rate, as are
all other variables in the GRIM. DOE first calculated a nominal
industry discount rate of 12.2 percent. DOE then subtracted 3.1 percent
from this nominal discount rate to account for the historical inflation
rate before arriving at the 9.1 percent real industry discount rate
used in the GRIM. For additional information, refer to chapter 11 of
the TSD for this NOPD.
DOE requests comment on its use of 12.2 percent as a nominal
industry discount rate and its use of 3.1 percent as the historical
inflation rate, to arrive at a 9.1 percent real industry discount rate.
b. Changes in Test Procedure and Manufacturer Interviews
AHAM commented that manufacturer interviews were conducted in the
earlier stages of the rulemaking before DOE proposed to repeal the oven
test procedure and to adopt a different
[[Page 81034]]
cooking top test procedure. AHAM suggested that these developments
raise doubt on the relevance of the information received during the
interviews. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 34, 35) DOE received information
during manufacturer interviews dealing with conversion costs and
production costs for a variety of different design changes that were
analyzed both for this NOPD and for the September 2016 SNOPR. The
conversion cost estimates given during manufacturer interviews were
primarily based on meeting performance-based energy conservation
standards. In this NOPD analysis, DOE estimated the performance
characteristics of consumer conventional cooking products at the
analyzed prescriptive standard levels. The design options, and costs of
meeting those design options, discussed in the manufacturer interviews
conducted in the earlier stages of the rulemaking are relevant
estimates for manufacturers to meet the analyzed prescriptive standards
in this NOPD analysis.
c. Other Comments
Other comments made by interested parties concerned either the
cumulative regulatory burden or the small business analysis. The
cumulative regulatory burden comments are addressed in section V.B.2.e
of this document and the small business comments are addressed in
section VI.C of this document.
4. Manufacturer Interviews
DOE conducted manufacturer interviews following publication of the
February 2014 RFI in preparation for the June 2015 NOPR analysis. In
these interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe their major
concerns with this consumer conventional cooking products rulemaking.
The following section describes the key issues identified by consumer
conventional cooking product manufacturers during these manufacturer
interviews. DOE conducted additional discussions with select
manufacturers to follow up on information received on the June 2015
NOPR, but those discussions focused primarily on the engineering
analysis. DOE did not conduct any further interviews with manufacturers
between the September 2016 SNOPR and this NOPD because further
interviews were not necessary to revise the MIA for this NOPD. Instead
DOE, used comments from interested parties to update the MIA.
a. Premium Products Tend To Be Less Efficient
Manufacturers stated that their premium products (i.e., gas cooking
tops and ovens marketed as commercial-style) are usually less efficient
than products marketed as residential-style. Commercial-style gas
cooking tops typically have features such as heavier cast iron grates
that decrease efficiency by acting as an additional thermal load. Also,
this style of gas cooking top typically has wider spacing between the
burner and grate surface, further reducing the efficiency of the
cooking top. Conversely, gas cooking tops marketed as residential-style
tend to have lighter-weight, lower grates so the cooking vessels
resting on them are closer to the heat sources. Commercial-style ovens
typically have large, heavier-gauge cavity construction and extension
racks that result in inherently lower efficiencies compared to
residential-style ovens with comparable cavities sizes when measured
according to the DOE test procedure in effect at the time of the
interviews, due to the greater thermal mass of the cavity and racks.
Manufacturers warned DOE that focusing only on the efficiency of
consumer conventional cooking products could cause some manufacturers
to redesign their products in a way that reduces consumer satisfaction,
as consumers tend to value premium features even though they may be
less efficient. As explained in section IV.C.2.b of this document, DOE
did not analyze, and is not proposing standards at, higher efficiency
levels for gas cooking tops in this NOPD. While DOE agrees that
commercial-style ovens would not be able to meet the higher gas oven
standards analyzed, DOE is not proposing amended standards for gas
ovens in this NOPD.
b. Induction Cooking Products
Some manufacturers stated that induction cooking tops should be
considered as a separate product class apart from electric smooth
element cooking tops. Manufacturers stated that although induction
cooking tops tend to be more efficient that other electric smooth
element cooking tops, induction cooking tops could require consumers to
replace some or all of their cookware if they are not ferromagnetic.
DOE did not evaluate a separate product class for induction cooking
tops, as discussed in section IV.A.1.a of this document. Additionally,
DOE is not proposing new standards for electric smooth element cooking
tops in this NOPD.
c. Product Utility
Manufacturers stated that energy efficiency is not one of the most
important attributes that consumers value when purchasing consumer
conventional cooking products. Manufacturers stated that there are
several other factors, such as performance and durability, which
consumers value more when purchasing consumer conventional cooking
products. Required improvements to the efficiency of their products
could lead some manufacturers to remove premium features that consumers
desire from their products, potentially reducing overall consumer
utility. As discussed in section V.C.4 of this document, DOE is not
proposing new or amended standards for consumer conventional cooking
products in this NOPD, and thus the utility or performance of the
consumer conventional cooking products under consideration in this
proposed determination would not be reduced.
d. Testing and Certification Burdens
Several manufacturers expressed concern about the testing and
recertification costs associated with new and amended energy
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products.
Because testing and certification costs are incurred on a per model
basis, if a large number of models are required to be redesigned to
meet potential new and amended standards, manufacturers would be forced
to spend a significant amount of money testing and certifying products
that were redesigned. Manufacturers stated that these testing and
certification costs associated with consumer conventional cooking
products could significantly strain their limited resources if these
costs were all incurred in the 3-year period between the publication of
a potential final rule and the compliance date of the potential new and
amended standards. As part of the MIA, DOE included all certification
and re-certification costs that would be required to comply with the
evaluated standards. Additionally, DOE is not proposing any new or
amended standards in this NOPD, and has withdrawn the conventional
cooking products test procedure. Therefore, manufacturers would not
incur any testing or certification costs due to this NOPD.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for
consumer
[[Page 81035]]
conventional cooking products. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE
and the projected impacts of each of these levels. Additional details
regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the TSD for this NOPD.
A. Trial Standard Levels
DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of three TSLs for consumer
conventional cooking products. These TSLs were developed by combining
specific efficiency levels for each of the product classes analyzed by
DOE. DOE presents the results for the TSLs in this document, while the
results for all efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in the TSD for
this NOPD.
Table V-1 through Table V-3 present the TSLs and the corresponding
efficiency levels for consumer conventional cooking products.\73\ TSLs
developed for the September 2016 SNOPR were updated for this proposed
determination to account for updates to the engineering analysis based
on additional testing and analysis. Details regarding the updates to
the efficiency level analysis are discussed in section IV.C.2 of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ For the conventional oven product classes, the efficiency
levels are based on an oven with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft\3\. As
discussed in section IV.C.2.c of this document, DOE developed slopes
and intercepts to characterize the relationship between IEAC and
cavity volume for each efficiency level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 3 represents the max-tech improvements in energy efficiency for
all product classes, except for electric open (coil) element cooking
tops and gas cooking tops. TSL 2 comprises efficiency levels providing
maximum NES with positive NPV. TSL 1 was configured to include a
controls based strategy that would not eliminate the utility of a clock
display on combined cooking products from the market.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.054
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
DOE analyzed the economic impacts on consumer conventional cooking
products consumers by looking at the effects that potential new and
amended standards at each TSL would have on the LCC and PBP. These
analyses are discussed below.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
In general, higher-efficiency products can affect consumers in two
ways: (1) Purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs
decreases. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the TSD for
this NOPD provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
Table V-4 through Table V-25 show the LCC and PBP results for all
efficiency levels considered for each consumer conventional cooking
product class (``PC''). In the first of each pair of tables, the simple
payback is measured relative to the baseline product. In the second
table, the LCC savings are measured relative to the no-new-standards
case efficiency distribution in
[[Page 81036]]
the compliance year (see section IV.F.9 of this NOPD). Because some
consumers purchase products with higher efficiency in the no-new-
standards case, the average savings are less than the difference
between the average LCC of the baseline product and the average LCC at
each TSL. The savings refer only to consumers who are affected by a
standard at a given TSL. Those who already purchase a product with
efficiency at or above a given TSL are not affected. Consumers for whom
the LCC increases at a given TSL experience a net cost.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.057
[[Page 81037]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.060
[[Page 81038]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.063
[[Page 81039]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.066
[[Page 81040]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.069
[[Page 81041]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.072
[[Page 81042]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.075
[[Page 81043]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.076
b. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
As discussed in section IV.F of this document, EPCA establishes a
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is
economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product
that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the
first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) In calculating a rebuttable presumption PBP for
each of the considered TSLs, DOE used discrete values, and, as required
by EPCA, based the energy use calculation on the now-withdrawn DOE test
procedures for consumer conventional cooking products. In contrast, the
PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a of this document were calculated
using distributions that reflect the range of energy use in the field.
See chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD for more information on the rebuttable
presumption payback analysis.
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of potential new and
amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products. The following sections describe the
expected impacts on consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers
at each TSL. Chapter 11 of the TSD for this NOPD explains the MIA in
further detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which
examines changes in the industry that could result from new and amended
standards. Table V-26 and Table V-27 depict the estimated financial
impacts (represented by changes in INPV) of potential new and amended
energy conservation standards on consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers, as well as the conversion costs that DOE estimates
manufacturers would incur at each TSL. To evaluate the range of cash
flow impacts on the consumer conventional cooking product industry, DOE
modeled two manufacturer markup scenarios that correspond to the range
of anticipated market responses to new and amended standards. Each
manufacturer markup scenario results in a unique set of cash flows and
corresponding industry values at each TSL.
In the following discussion, the INPV results refer to the
difference in industry value between the no-new-standards case and the
standards cases that result from the sum of discounted cash flows from
the reference year (2019) through the end of the analysis period
(2052). The results also discuss the difference in cash flows between
the no-new-standards case and the standards cases in the year before
the analyzed compliance date for potential new and amended energy
conservation standards. This figure represents the size of the required
conversion costs relative to the cash flow generated by the consumer
conventional cooking product industry in the absence of new and amended
energy conservation standards. In the engineering analysis, DOE
enumerates common technology options that achieve the efficiencies for
each of the analyzed product classes. For descriptions of these
technology options and the required efficiencies at each TSL, see
section IV.C and section V.A, respectively, of this document.
To assess the upper (less severe) end of the range of potential
impacts on consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers, DOE
modeled a preservation of gross margin markup scenario. This scenario
assumes that in the standards cases, manufacturers would be able to
pass along all the higher production costs required for more efficient
products to their consumers. Specifically, the industry would be able
to maintain its average no-new-standards case gross margin (as a
percentage of revenue) despite the higher production costs in the
standards cases. In general, the larger the product price increases,
the less likely manufacturers are to achieve the cash flow from
operations calculated in this scenario because it is less likely that
manufacturers would be able to fully mark up these larger production
cost increases.
To assess the lower (more severe) end of the range of potential
impacts on the consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers, DOE
modeled the preservation of operating profit markup scenario. This
scenario represents the lower end of the range of potential impacts on
manufacturers because no additional operating profit is earned on the
higher production costs, eroding profit margins as a percentage of
total revenue.
Table V-26 and Table V-27 present the projected results for
consumer conventional cooking products under the preservation of gross
margin and preservation of operating profit markup scenarios. DOE
examined results for all product classes together since the majority of
manufacturers sell products across a variety of the analyzed product
classes.
[[Page 81044]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.078
TSL 1 sets the efficiency level at baseline for two product classes
(electric open (coil) element cooking tops and gas cooking tops) and at
EL 1 for all other product classes (electric smooth element cooking
tops, all electric ovens, and all gas ovens). At TSL 1, DOE estimates
impacts on INPV to range from -$45.6 million to -$44.3 million, or a
change in INPV of -2.9 percent to -2.8 percent. At TSL 1, industry free
cash flow (operating cash flow minus capital expenditures) is estimated
to decrease to $106.3 million, or a drop of 18.9 percent, compared to
the no-new-standards case value of $131.0 million in 2022, the year
leading up to the analyzed compliance date of potential new and amended
energy conservation standards.
Percentage impacts on INPV are slightly negative at TSL 1. DOE does
not anticipate that manufacturers would lose a significant portion of
their INPV at this TSL, given the limited conversion costs and number
of consumer conventional cooking products projected to comply with the
analyzed standards at this TSL. DOE projects that in the analyzed year
of compliance (2023), 100 percent of electric open (coil) element
cooking top and gas cooking top shipments, 45 percent of electric
smooth element cooking top shipments, 60 percent of electric standard
oven (free-standing and built-in) shipments, 48 percent of electric
self-clean oven (free-standing and built-in) shipments, 54 percent of
gas standard oven (free-standing and built-in) shipments, and 45
percent of gas self-clean oven (free-standing and built-in) shipments
will meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 1.
DOE expects conversion costs to be small at TSL 1 because the
design changes prescribed at this TSL only affect standby mode power
consumption and do not apply to active mode power consumption. DOE
expects consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers would incur
$25.2 million in product conversion costs for product redesigns that
include converting electric smooth element cooking tops and both gas
and electric ovens to transition from using linear power supplies to
SMPS in order to reduce standby power consumption. DOE expects $35.1
million in capital conversion costs for manufacturers to upgrade
production lines and retool equipment associated with achieving this
reduction in standby power.
At TSL 1, under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario,
the shipment weighted-average MPC increases very slightly by
approximately 0.1 percent relative to the no-new-standards case MPC.
This slight price increase is outweighed by the $60.3 million in
conversion costs estimated at TSL 1, resulting in slightly negative
INPV impacts at TSL 1 under the
[[Page 81045]]
preservation of gross margin markup scenario.
Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario,
manufacturers earn the same nominal operating profit as would be earned
in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional
profit from their investments. The slight increase in the shipment
weighted-average MPC results in a slightly lower average manufacturer
markup (slightly smaller than the 1.20 manufacturer markup used in the
no-new-standards case). This slightly lower average manufacturer markup
and the $60.3 million in conversion costs result in slightly negative
INPV impacts at TSL 1 under the preservation of operating profit.
TSL 2 sets the efficiency level at baseline for two product classes
(electric open (coil) element cooking tops and gas cooking tops); EL 1
for four product classes (electric self-clean free-standing ovens,
electric self-clean built-in ovens, gas self-clean free-standing ovens,
and gas self-clean built-in ovens); EL 2 for electric smooth element
cooking tops; EL 3 for two product classes (gas standard free-standing
ovens and gas standard built-in ovens); and EL 4 for two product
classes (electric standard free-standing ovens and electric standard
built-in ovens). At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from
-$88.2 million to -$82.6 million, or a change in INPV of -5.6 percent
to -5.2 percent. At this standard level, industry free cash flow is
estimated to decrease to $83.5 million, or a drop of 36.3 percent,
compared to the no-new-standards case value of $131.0 million in 2022,
the year leading up to the analyzed compliance date of potential new
and amended energy conservation standards.
Percentage impacts on INPV are moderately negative at TSL 2. The
$117.3 million in industry conversion costs represent a significant
investment for manufacturers, and is the primary cause of the potential
drop in INPV of up to 5.6 percent and a significant decrease of 36.3
percent in free cash flow in the year leading up to the analyzed
compliance date of potential new and amended standards. DOE projects
that in 2023, 100 percent of electric open (coil) cooking top and gas
cooking top shipments, 23 percent of electric smooth element cooking
top shipments, 28 percent of electric standard oven (free-standing and
built-in) shipments, 48 percent of electric self-clean oven (free-
standing and built-in) shipments, 27 percent of gas standard oven
(free-standing and built-in) shipments, and 45 percent of gas self-
cleaning oven (free-standing and built-in) shipments will meet or
exceed the efficiency levels at TSL 2.
DOE expects that product conversion costs will rise from $25.2
million at TSL 1 to $54.9 million at TSL 2 for extensive product
redesigns and testing. Capital conversion costs will also increase from
$35.1 million at TSL 1 to $62.4 million at TSL 2 to upgrade production
equipment to accommodate added or redesigned features in each product
class. The larger conversion costs at TSL 2 are driven by the need to
reduce vent rates, improve insulation and door seals, and include
forced convection for electric standard ovens; and improve insulation
and door seals for gas standard ovens.
At TSL 2, under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario,
the shipment weighted-average MPC increases by 0.5 percent, relative to
the no-new-standards case MPC. In this scenario, INPV impacts are
moderately negative because manufacturers would incur sizable
conversion costs ($117.3 million) and would not be able to recover much
of those conversion costs through the 0.5 percent increase in the
shipment weighted-average MPC at TSL 2.
Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, the 0.5
percent shipment weighted-average increase in MPC results in a slightly
lower average manufacturer markup. This slightly lower average
manufacturer markup and the $117.3 million in conversion costs results
in moderately negative INPV impacts at TSL 2.
TSL 3 sets the efficiency level at baseline for two product classes
(electric open (coil) element cooking tops and gas cooking tops); EL 2
for two product classes (gas self-clean free-standing ovens and gas
self-clean built-in ovens); EL 3 for three product classes (electric
smooth element cooking tops, electric self-clean free-standing ovens,
and electric self-clean built-in ovens); EL 4 for two product classes
(gas standard free-standing ovens and gas standard built-in ovens); and
EL 6 for two product classes (electric standard free-standing ovens and
electric standard built-in ovens). This represents max-tech for all
product classes for which efficiency levels above the baseline were
analyzed. At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$629.0
million to -$384.6 million, or a change in INPV of -39.6 percent to -
24.2 percent. At TSL 3, industry free cash flow is estimated to
decrease to -$184.0 million, or a drop of 240.4 percent, compared to
the no-new-standards case value of $131.0 million in 2022, the year
leading up to the analyzed compliance date of potential new and amended
energy conservation standards.
At TSL 3 conversion costs significantly increase, causing free cash
flow to become significantly negative, -$184.0 million, in the year
leading up to the analyzed compliance date of potential new and amended
standards and causing manufacturers to lose a substantial amount of
INPV. Also, the percent change in INPV at TSL 3 is significantly
negative due to the extremely large conversion costs, $776.3 million.
Manufacturers at this TSL would have a very difficult time in the short
term to make the necessary investments to comply with the analyzed new
and amended energy conservation standards prior to the analyzed
compliance date.
A high percentage of total shipments would need to be redesigned to
meet the efficiency levels prescribed at TSL 3. DOE projects that in
2023, 100 percent of electric open (coil) element cooking top and gas
cooking top shipments, 1 percent of electric smooth element cooking top
shipments, 8 percent of electric standard oven (free-standing and
built-in) shipments, 15 percent of electric self-clean oven (free-
standing and built-in) shipments, 13 percent of gas standard oven
(free-standing and built-in) shipments, and 23 percent of gas self-
clean oven (free-standing and built-in) shipments will meet the
efficiency levels at TSL 3.
DOE expects significant conversion costs at TSL 3, which represents
max-tech. DOE expects product conversion costs to significantly
increase from $54.9 million at TSL 2 to $362.9 million at TSL 3. Large
increases in product conversion costs are due to most shipments needing
extensive redesign as well as a significant increase in re-
certification for re-designed products. DOE estimates that capital
conversion costs will also significantly increase from $62.4 million at
TSL 2 to $413.4 million at TSL 3. Capital conversion costs are driven
by investments in production equipment to switch to induction heating
elements for electric smooth element cooking tops; reduce vent rates,
improve insulation and door seals, and include forced convection and
oven separators for electric standard ovens; include forced convection
and oven separators for electric self-clean ovens; improve insulation
and door seals and include forced convection for gas standard ovens;
and include forced convection in gas self-clean ovens.
At TSL 3, under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario,
the shipment weighted-average MPC increases by 18.4 percent relative to
the no-new-standards case MPC. In this
[[Page 81046]]
scenario, INPV impacts are significantly negative because the $776.3
million in conversion costs outweigh the modest increase in shipment
weighted-average MPC, resulting in significantly negative INPV impacts
at TSL 3.
Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, the
18.4 percent shipment weighted-average increase in MPC results in a
lower average manufacturer markup (1.192 compared to the no-new-
standards case average manufacturer markup of 1.200). This lower
average manufacturer markup and the $776.3 million in conversion costs
result in significantly negative INPV impacts at TSL 3.
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
To quantitatively assess the potential impacts of new and amended
energy conservation standards on direct employment in the conventional
cooking products industry, DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic
labor expenditures and number of direct employees in the no-new-
standards case and at each TSL from 2023 to 2052. DOE used statistical
data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2016 Annual Survey of Manufactures
(``ASM''), the results of the engineering analysis, and interviews with
manufacturers to determine the inputs necessary to calculate industry-
wide labor expenditures and domestic employment levels. Labor
expenditures involved with the manufacturing of the products are a
function of the labor intensity of the products, the sales volume, and
an assumption that wages remain fixed in real terms over time.
In the GRIM, DOE used the labor content of the MPCs to estimate the
annual labor expenditures in the industry. DOE used census data and
interviews with manufacturers to estimate the portion of the total
labor expenditures that is attributable to domestic labor.
The production worker estimates in this section cover only workers
up to the line-supervisor level directly involved in fabricating and
assembling a product within a manufacturing facility. Workers
performing services that are closely associated with production
operations, such as material handing with a forklift, are also included
as production labor. DOE's estimates account for production workers who
manufacture only the specific products covered in this proposed
determination.
The employment impacts shown in Table V-28 represent the potential
domestic production employment that could result following the analyzed
new and amended energy conservation standards. The upper bound of the
results estimates the maximum change in the number of production
workers that could occur after compliance with the analyzed new and
amended energy conservation standards when assuming that manufacturers
continue to produce the same scope of covered products in the same
production facilities. It also assumes that domestic production does
not shift to lower labor-cost countries. Because there is a real risk
of manufacturers evaluating sourcing decisions in response to the
analyzed new and amended energy conservation standards, the lower bound
of the employment results includes DOE's estimate of the total number
of U.S. production workers in the industry who could lose their jobs if
some or all existing domestic production were moved outside of the
United States. While the results present a range of domestic employment
impacts following 2023, the following sections also include qualitative
discussions of the likelihood of negative employment impacts at the
various TSLs.
Using 2016 ASM data and interviews with manufacturers, DOE
estimates that approximately 60 percent of the consumer conventional
cooking products sold in the United States are manufactured
domestically. With this assumption, DOE estimates that in the absence
of any new and amended energy conservation standards, there would be
approximately 7,186 domestic production workers involved in
manufacturing consumer conventional cooking products in 2023. Table V-
28 shows the range of the impacts of the analyzed new and amended
energy conservation standards on U.S. production workers in the
consumer conventional cooking product industry.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.079
At the upper end of the range, all examined TSLs show a slight
increase in the number of domestic production workers for consumer
conventional cooking products. DOE believes that manufacturers would
increase production hiring due to the increase in the labor associated
with adding the required components to make consumer conventional
cooking products more efficient. However, as previously stated, this
assumes that in addition to hiring more production employees, all
existing domestic production would remain in the United States and not
shift to lower labor-cost countries.
DOE does not expect any significant changes in domestic employment
at TSL 1 because standards would only affect standby mode power
consumption at this TSL. Most manufacturers stated that this TSL would
not require significant design changes and therefore would not have a
significant impact on domestic employment decisions.
At TSL 2 and TSL 3, most manufacturers would be required to make at
least some modifications to their existing production lines. However,
manufacturers stated that due
[[Page 81047]]
to the larger size of most consumer conventional cooking products, very
few units are manufactured and shipped from far distances such as Asia
or Europe. The vast majority of consumer conventional cooking products
are currently made in North America. Some manufacturers stated that
even significant changes to production lines would not cause them to
shift their production to lower labor-cost countries, as several
manufacturers either only produce consumer conventional cooking
products domestically or have recently made significant investments to
continue to produce consumer conventional cooking products
domestically.
At TSL 2, manufacturers could alter production locations in
response to standards, since most product classes would be required to
meet energy conservation standards that would most likely require
modifications to more than just standby mode power consumption. DOE
estimated that at most 25 percent of the domestic labor for consumer
conventional cooking products could move to other countries in response
to the analyzed standards at TSL 2.
At TSL 3, manufacturers could alter production locations in
response to standards, since all product classes other than electric
open (coil) element cooking tops and gas cooking tops would be required
to meet max-tech. DOE estimated that at most 50 percent of the domestic
labor for consumer conventional cooking products could move to other
countries in response to the analyzed standards at TSL 3.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
Consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers stated that
they did not anticipate any capacity constraints at TSL 1, which would
only require modifications to electronic control components. Some
manufacturers stated that any standard requiring induction heating
technology for all electric smooth element cooking tops would present a
very difficult standard to meet since only around 1 percent of the
existing electric smooth element cooking tops use induction technology.
Manufacturers stated that converting 99 percent of their electric
smooth element cooking tops in the 3-year compliance window would
present a significant challenge, since the production of induction
heating cooking tops differs significantly from current cooking top
production.
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow
estimate may not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among
manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche product
manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting cost structures
substantially different from the industry average could be affected
disproportionately. DOE analyzed the impacts on small businesses in
section VI.B of this document. DOE also identified the commercial-style
manufacturer subgroup as a potential manufacturer subgroup that could
be adversely impacted by the considered standards based on the results
of the industry characterization.
The commercial-style manufacturer subgroup consists of consumer
conventional cooking product manufacturers that primarily sell gas
cooking tops, gas ovens, and electric self-clean ovens marketed as
commercial-style, either as a stand-alone product or as a component of
a conventional range. While no commercial-style manufacturers (i.e.,
manufacturers that are producing conventional ovens that are primarily
marketed as commercial-style) produce electric coil element cooking
tops, some commercial-style manufacturers produce electric smooth
element cooking tops. Of those commercial-style manufacturers that do
produce electric smooth element cooking tops, all have products that
use induction technology that would be capable of meeting max-tech for
this product class. Commercial-style electric and gas ovens typically
have cavities with heavier-gauge cavity walls and heavier racks that
result in inherently lower efficiencies compared to residential-style
ovens with comparable cavity sizes, due to the greater thermal mass of
the cavity and racks, when measured by the earlier DOE test procedure.
The vast majority of commercial-style electric and gas ovens already
use SMPS in their ovens and would not have difficulty meeting a
potential standard level requiring SMPS for ovens. However, there would
be significant uncertainty as to whether commercial-style manufacturers
would be able to test their conventional ovens, in the absence of a DOE
test procedure for these products, to potentially meet the analyzed
standards at TSLs that require design options in addition to SMPS for
ovens (TSL 2 and TSL 3).
Therefore, these commercial-style manufacturers would likely be
forced to exit the conventional oven market as a result of conventional
oven standards set above TSL 1.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or the entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts a cumulative
regulatory burden analysis as part of its rulemakings for consumer
conventional cooking products.
DOE recognizes that cooking products that include both a
conventional cooking top and oven (i.e., conventional ranges) may be
assembled on a single assembly line in manufacturing production
facilities. DOE also notes that some components and parts (e.g.,
cabinet housing, controls) may be shared between the oven and cooking
top portion of a conventional range. Setting standards with different
compliance dates for ovens and cooking tops could result in the need
for manufacturers to redesign the oven and cooking top portions of
conventional ranges (including shared components and assembly lines)
separately on different timelines. As discussed in section II.B.2 of
this document, DOE combined the rulemakings to consider energy
conservation standards for conventional cooking tops and ovens together
and has aligned the compliance dates for both product categories to
reduce redesign cycles and to mitigate manufacturer costs.
AHAM commented that home appliances are now in a continuous cycle
of regulation, where as soon as one compliance effort ends or is near
completion, another round of regulation to change the standard begins
again. According to AHAM, this puts a continual burden on
manufacturers. AHAM also stated that there is no time for DOE,
manufacturers, or efficiency
[[Page 81048]]
advocates to assess the success of standards or review their impacts on
consumers and manufacturers. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 36) Under EPCA, DOE is
required to analyze potential new and amended energy conservation
standards for specific products within specific time periods. (See 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)) DOE will continue to meet its legal obligations for
either amending standards or determining that revised standards are not
justified.
DOE acknowledges that some consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers also make appliances that are or could be subject to
future energy conservation standards implemented by DOE. DOE is also
aware of energy conservation standards that could affect consumer
conventional cooking product manufacturers. These energy conservation
standards include those for walk-in coolers and freezers with a
compliance date in 2020,\74\ residential boilers with a compliance date
in 2021,\75\ residential central air conditioners and heat pumps with a
compliance date in 2023,\76\ and small, large, and very large
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment with a second
compliance date in 2023.\77\ The compliance years and expected industry
conversion costs of all relevant new and amended energy conservation
standards are indicated in Table V-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Energy conservation standards final rule for walk-in
coolers and freezers. 82 FR 31808 (July 10, 2017).
\75\ Energy conservation standards final rule for residential
boilers. 81 FR 2320 (Jan. 15, 2016).
\76\ Energy conservation standards final rule for residential
central air conditioners and heat pumps. 82 FR 1786 (Jan. 6, 2017).
\77\ Energy conservation standards final rule for small, large,
and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment. 81 FR 2420 (Jan. 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.080
[[Page 81049]]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
When conducting the cumulative regulatory burden analysis, DOE
considers other energy conservation standards for products that
consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers make, especially if
those standards occur either 3 years before or after the anticipated
compliance date for consumer conventional cooking products standards,
as part of this analysis. DOE discusses these and other requirements
and includes the full details of the cumulative regulatory burden
analysis in Chapter 11 of the TSD for this NOPD.
AHAM expressed concern about DOE amending test procedures and
proposing standards simultaneously. AHAM commented that the time and
resources needed to evaluate and respond to both amended test
procedures and new and amended energy conservation standards should not
be discounted as a source of cumulative regulatory burden. AHAM also
stated that manufacturers experience difficulty in determining how
their products will perform in relation to the standards when the test
procedure has not been finalized, which nearly precluded commenting on
the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 35, 36) DOE understands that
responding to test procedure and standards proposals take time and
resources from manufacturers. As discussed, DOE published an update to
the Process Rule. 85 FR 8626. Pursuant to the update, test procedure
rulemakings establishing methodologies used to evaluate proposed energy
conservation standards will be finalized at least 180 days prior to
publication of a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation
standards. Section 8(d) of the Process Rule.
3. National Impact Analysis
This section presents DOE's estimates of the NES and the NPV of
consumer benefits that would result from each of the TSLs considered as
potential new and amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential new and
amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products, DOE
compared their energy consumption under the no-new-standards case to
their anticipated energy consumption under each TSL. The savings are
measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the year of anticipated compliance with potential
new and amended standards (2023-2052). Table V-30 presents DOE's
projections of the NES for each TSL considered for consumer
conventional cooking products. The savings were calculated using the
approach described in section IV.H of this document.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.081
OMB Circular A-4 \78\ requires agencies to present analytical
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this proposed
determination, DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9, rather
than 30, years of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a
proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy
conservation standards and potential revision of and compliance with
such revised standards.\79\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is
generally not synchronized with the product lifetime, product
manufacturing cycles, or other factors specific to consumer
conventional cooking products. Thus, such results are presented for
informational purposes only and are not indicative of any change in
DOE's analytical methodology. The NES sensitivity analysis results
based on a 9-year analytical period are presented in Table V-31. The
impacts are counted over the lifetime of conventional cooking products
purchased in 2023-2031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
\79\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards
at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a
3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before
compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards
be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous
standards. If DOE makes a determination that amended standards are
not needed, it must conduct a subsequent review within three years
following such a determination. As DOE is evaluating the need to
amend the standards, the sensitivity analysis is based on the review
timeframe associated with amended standards. While adding a 6-year
review to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes
that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year period
and that the 3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-year
backstop. A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate given the
variability that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and the
fact that for some products, the compliance period is 5 years rather
than 3 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 81050]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.082
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for consumer
conventional cooking products. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on
regulatory analysis,\80\ DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and
a 3-percent real discount rate. Table V-32 shows the consumer NPV
results for each TSL DOE considered for consumer conventional cooking
products. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products
purchased in 2023-2052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.083
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical
period are presented in Table V-33. The impacts are counted over the
lifetime of products purchased in 2023-2031. As mentioned previously,
such results are presented for informational purposes only and is not
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision
criteria.
[[Page 81051]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.084
The above results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate
the change in price for consumer conventional cooking products over the
analysis period (see section IV.F.1 of this document). DOE also
conducted a sensitivity analysis that considered one scenario with a
lower rate of price decline than the reference case and one scenario
with a higher rate of price decline than the reference case. The
results of these alternative cases are presented in appendix 10C of the
TSD for this NOPD. In the high-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer
benefits is higher than in the default case. In the low-price-decline
case, the NPV of consumer benefits is lower than in the default case.
C. Proposed Determination
When considering amended energy conservation standards, the
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by,
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
For this proposed determination, DOE considered the impacts of
amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products at
analyzed TSLs, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible
level, to determine whether that level was economically justified.
Because an analysis of potential economic justification and energy
savings first requires an evaluation of the relevant technology, in the
following sections DOE first discusses the technological feasibility of
amended standards. DOE then addresses the energy savings and economic
justification associated with potential amended standards.
Table V-34 and Table V-35 summarize the quantitative impacts
estimated for each TSL for consumer conventional cooking products. The
national impacts are measured over the lifetime of consumer
conventional cooking products purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the anticipated year of compliance with potential new and
amended standards (2023-2052). The efficiency levels contained in each
TSL are described in section V.A of this document.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.085
[[Page 81052]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14DE20.086
[[Page 81053]]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
1. Technological Feasibility
EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking products would be
technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and (n)(2)(B)) DOE
has tentatively determined that there are technology options that would
improve the efficiency of consumer conventional cooking products. These
technology options are being used in commercially available consumer
conventional cooking products and therefore are technologically
feasible. (See section IV.B of this document for further information.)
Hence, DOE has tentatively determined that amended energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking products are
technologically feasible.
2. Significant Conservation of Energy
EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products would
result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)
and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(A)) As discussed in section III.D.2 of this
document, to determine whether energy savings are significant, DOE
conducts a two-step approach that considers both an absolute site
energy savings threshold and a threshold that is a percent reduction in
the covered energy use. Section 6(b) of the Process Rule. DOE first
evaluates the projected energy savings from a potential max-tech
standard over a 30-year period against a 0.3 quads of site energy
threshold. Section 6(b)(2) of the Process Rule. If the 0.3 quad-
threshold is not met, DOE then compares the max-tech savings to the
total energy usage of the covered equipment to calculate a percentage
reduction in energy usage. Section 6(b)(3) of the Process Rule. If this
comparison does not yield a reduction in site energy use of at least 10
percent over a 30-year period, DOE proposes that no significant energy
savings would likely result from setting new or amended standards.
Section 6(b)(4) of the Process Rule.
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended
standards for consumer conventional cooking products, DOE compared
their energy consumption under the no-new-standards case to their
anticipated energy consumption under each potential standard level. The
savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in
the 30-year period that begins in the year of anticipated compliance
with amended standards (2023-2052).
DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels. TSL 3 would save an estimated 0.57 quads of site
energy, an amount DOE considers significant as it exceeds the 0.3 quad-
threshold established in section 6(b)(2) of the Process Rule for
evaluating the significance of energy savings.
DOE then considered TSL 2, which would save an estimated 0.22 quads
of energy over the evaluation period, which represents a 4.9-percent
decrease in energy use of the evaluated products. The estimated energy
savings does not reach the 0.3 quad-threshold or the 10-percent energy
saving threshold established in section 6(b) of the Process Rule, and
therefore would not be significant. Because TSL 2 would not achieve
significant energy savings, DOE did not consider it further.
Finally, DOE considered TSL 1, which would save an estimated 0.10
quads of energy over the evaluation period, which represents a 2.2-
percent decrease in energy use of the evaluated products. The estimated
energy savings does not reach the 0.3 quad-threshold or the 10-percent
energy saving threshold established in section 6(b) of the Process
Rule, and therefore would not be significant. Because TSL 1 would not
achieve significant energy savings, DOE did not consider it further.
3. Economic Justification
In determining whether a standard is economically justified, the
Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed
its burdens, considering to the greatest extent practicable the seven
statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i))
One of those seven factors includes whether the proposed standard level
is cost-effective, as defined under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II).
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of cost-
effectiveness requires DOE to consider savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges,
or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to
result from the standard. This factor is assessed using LCC and PBP
analysis. DOE conducted an LCC analysis to estimate the net costs/
benefits to users from increased efficiency in the considered consumer
conventional cooking products. (See results in Table V-53.) DOE then
aggregated the results from the LCC analysis to estimate the NPV of the
total costs and benefits experienced by the Nation. (See results in
Table V-44 and Table V-45.) As noted, the inputs for determining the
NPV are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total annual operating
costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), and (3) a
discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and savings.
Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be negative $18.4
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and negative $32.1 billion
using a discount rate of 3 percent.
At TSL 3, the average LCC impact ranges from a savings of negative
$457 for PC2 (Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops) to negative $11.12
for PC11 (Gas Self-Clean Oven--Built-In/Slide-In). The simple payback
period ranges from 16.5 years for PC8 (Gas Standard Oven--Free-
Standing) and PC9 (Gas Standard Oven--Built-In/Slide-In) to 111.7 years
for PC2 (Electric Smooth Cooking Tops). The fraction of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost ranges from zero percent for PC1 (Electric
Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops) and PC3 (Gas Cooking Tops), to 99
percent for PC2 (Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops).
DOE is concerned that TSL 3 may result in the unavailability of
certain product types for conventional ovens, because there would be
significant uncertainty as to whether commercial-style manufacturers
would be able to test their products, in the absence of a DOE test
procedure for conventional ovens. DOE also notes that the reduction in
IAEC at TSL 3 for PC2 (Electric Smooth Cooking Tops) could result in
the loss of certain functions that provide utility to consumers,
specifically the continuous clock display for combined cooking
products. In addition, DOE recognizes that there may be uncertainty in
conducting the standards analysis and analyzing energy savings from
performance standards for conventional ovens based on efficiency levels
using the previous version of the oven test procedure, which DOE has
now repealed in the December 2016 TP Final Rule due to concerns whether
the test procedure accurately reflects the energy use of all product
types.
At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$629.0 million to a decrease of $384.6 million, which correspond to
decreases of 39.6 percent and 24.2 percent, respectively.
Products that meet the efficiency standards specified by TSL 3 are
forecast to represent 39 percent of shipments in 2023, the analyzed
compliance year of the evaluated standards. As such, manufacturers
would have to redesign the majority of
[[Page 81054]]
their products by 2023. Redesigning these units to meet max-tech would
require considerable investment from manufacturers. At TSL 3, DOE
estimates capital conversion costs would total $413.4 million and
product conversion costs would total $362.9 million. Total capital and
product conversion costs associated with the changes in products and
manufacturing facilities required at TSL 3 would require significant
use of manufacturers' financial reserves and would significantly reduce
manufacturer INPV. Additionally, manufacturers are more likely to
reduce their margins to maintain a price-competitive product at higher
TSLs, so DOE expects that TSL 3 would yield impacts closer to the most
severe range of INPV impacts. If the most severe range of impacts is
reached, the max-tech standard could result in a net loss of 39.6
percent in INPV to consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers.
As a result, at TSL 3, DOE expects that some companies could be forced
to exit the consumer conventional cooking product market. The
commercial-style manufacturer subgroup would most likely not be able to
meet the conventional ovens standards required at this TSL and would
likely be forced to exit the conventional oven market.
Based on the negative NPV of TSL 3, the negative INPV range, and
the potential loss of utility resulting from a standard at TSL 3, DOE
has tentatively determined that any potential positive impact of the
other statutory factors would not outweigh the estimated negative
impacts. Hence, DOE has tentatively determined that an amended standard
at TSL 3 is not economically justified. Based on this consideration,
DOE is not proposing to amend energy conservation standards to adopt
TSL 3 for consumer conventional cooking products.
4. Summary of Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
In this proposed determination, based on the consideration of the
significance of energy savings and the factors required for
consideration of whether amended standards would be economically
justified, and the initial determination that amended standards would
not result in significant energy savings and would not be economically
justified, DOE has tentatively determined that energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking products do not need to be
amended. DOE will consider all comments received on this proposed
determination in issuing any final determination.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
This proposed determination has been determined to be not
significant for purposes of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a
result, OMB did not review this proposed determination.
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13771, ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3,
2017). E.O. 13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be
prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from
both public and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to
manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O.
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' 82 FR 12285 (March
1, 2017). E.O. 13771 required the head of each agency designate an
agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (``RRO''). Each RRO
oversees the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and
policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory
reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires
the establishment of a regulatory task force at each agency. The
regulatory task force is required to make recommendations to the agency
head regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of existing
regulations, consistent with applicable law. At a minimum, each
regulatory reform task force must attempt to identify regulations that:
(1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(2) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(3) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(4) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(5) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information
Quality Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in
particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data,
information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are
insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility;
or
(6) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other
Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or
substantially modified.
DOE initially concludes that this proposed determination is
consistent with the directives set forth in these executive orders.
As discussed in this document, DOE is proposing not to amend energy
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products.
Consistent with E.O. 13771, this proposed determination, if finalized,
is not estimated to result in any costs or cost savings. Therefore, if
finalized as proposed, this determination is expected to be an E.O.
13771 ``Other Action.''
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this proposed determination under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures
published on February 19, 2003. Because DOE is proposing not to amend
standards for consumer conventional cooking products, if adopted, the
determination would not amend any energy conservation standards. On the
basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the proposed determination,
if adopted, would have no significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an IRFA for
this proposed determination. DOE will transmit this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products must
certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy
conservation standards. DOE has established regulations for the
[[Page 81055]]
certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer
products and commercial equipment, consumer conventional cooking
products. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-
information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is
subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(``PRA''). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is
estimated to average 35 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed action in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for actions which are interpretations or
rulings with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart
D, appendix A4. DOE anticipates that this action qualifies for
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling
regarding an existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements
for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE
will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final action.
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed determination
and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this proposed determination. States
can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no
further action is required by E.O. 13132.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1)
clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies
any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and
burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5)
adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued
by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they
are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has
completed the required review and determined that, to the extent
permitted by law, this proposed determination meets the relevant
standards of E.O. 12988.
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
This proposed determination does not contain a Federal
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures
of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result,
the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed determination would not have any impact on the autonomy
or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
[[Page 81056]]
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this
proposed determination would not result in any takings that might
require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to
review most disseminations of information to the public under
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this NOPD under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB, a Statement of
Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor Executive Order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Because this proposed determination does not propose amended energy
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products, it
is not a significant energy action, nor has it been designated as such
by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
M. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan.
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' Id. at FR 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer
review.\81\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects.
DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues
to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process
for developing energy conservation standards in the case of the present
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report.'' 2007. Available at http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar are listed in the DATES section at
the beginning of this document. If no participants register for the
webinar then it will be cancelled. Webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website:
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=34. Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
NOPD, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has
an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral
presentation at the webinar. Such persons may hand-deliver requests to
speak to the address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of
this notification of proposed determination between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Requests may also
be sent by postal mail or email to the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies
Office, Mailstop EE-5B 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121, or [email protected]. Persons who wish
to speak should include with their request a computer file in
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that
briefly describes the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and
the topics they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a
daytime telephone number where they can be reached.
Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of
their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for
contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before
the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot
supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those
persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building
Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion.
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing,
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the
proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures
governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be
discussion of proprietary information, costs or
[[Page 81057]]
prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S.
anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public meeting and until the end of
the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on
the proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
The webinar/public meeting will be conducted in an informal,
conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received
before the webinar/public meeting, allow time for prepared general
statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to
share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant
will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits
determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will
permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any
general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the
webinar/public meeting will accept additional comments or questions
from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will
announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above
procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the webinar/
public meeting.
A transcript of the webinar/public meeting will be included in the
docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the
beginning of this NOPD. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the
transcript from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed determination no later than the date provided in the DATES
section at the beginning of this document. Interested parties may
submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. With this
instruction followed, the cover letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
one copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE seeks comment on both its initial decision to no longer
consider intermittent/interrupted or intermittent pilot ignition
systems as a technology option, and its initial decision to only
evaluate prescriptive standards requiring that conventional ovens
not be equipped with a control system that
[[Page 81058]]
uses a linear power supply (see section IV.A.2.b of this NOPD).
(2) DOE requests comment on the evaluated baseline and
incremental efficiency levels. DOE specifically requests inputs and
test data on the baseline efficiency levels and the efficiency
improvements associated with the design options identified at each
incremental efficiency level that were determined based on either
the analysis from the 2009 TSD or updated based on testing and
reverse engineering analyses for this NOPD (see section IV.C.2 of
this NOPD).
(3) DOE requests input and data on the estimated incremental
manufacturing production costs for each efficiency level analyzed
that were determined based on either the analysis from the 2009 TSD,
adjusted to reflect changes in the PPI, or costs determined based on
testing and reverse engineering analyses conducted for this NOPD
(see section IV.C.3 of this NOPD).
(4) DOE requests comments on the use of a consumer choice model
to establish the no-new-standards case and standards case efficiency
distribution for both electric and gas cooking products (see section
IV.F.8 of this NOPD)
(5) To estimate the impact on shipments of the price increase
for the considered efficiency levels, DOE determined that the new
construction market will be inelastic to price changes and will not
impact shipments, and any impact of the price increase would be on
the replacement market. DOE welcomes input on the effect of
potential new and amended standards on impacts across products
within the same fuel class and equipment type (see section IV.G of
this NOPD).
(6) DOE requests comment on its use of 12.2 percent as a nominal
industry discount rate and its use of 3.1 percent as the historical
inflation rate, to arrive at a 9.1 percent real industry discount
rate (see section IV.I.3.a of this NOPD).
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of this proposed determination that may not specifically be
identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under
Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs,'' Executive Branch agencies such as DOE must manage the costs
associated with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with
Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with
that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on
measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its energy conservation
standards rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and
compliance and certification requirements applicable to consumer
conventional cooking products while remaining consistent with the
requirements of EPCA.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
notification of proposed determination.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 2,
2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date
is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-26874 Filed 12-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P