[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6818-6904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00610]



[[Page 6817]]

Vol. 88

Wednesday,

No. 21

February 1, 2023

Part II





Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





10 CFR Parts 429 and 430





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer 
Conventional Cooking Products; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 6818]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 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: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of 
public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking (``SNOPR''), DOE proposes new and amended 
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on 
these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES: 
    Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Tuesday, 
January 31, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII of this 
document, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar registration 
information, participant instructions, and information about the 
capabilities available to webinar participants.
    Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding 
this SNOPR no later than April 3, 2023.
    Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed 
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in 
the ADDRESSES section on or before March 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket 
number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005. 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:
    Email: [email protected]. Include 
the docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005 in the subject line of the 
message.
    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.
    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 telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section VII of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the 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 www.regulations.gov/docket/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 of this document for information on how to submit comments 
through www.regulations.gov.
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites 
input from market participants and other interested persons with views 
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested 
persons may contact the Division at [email protected] on or 
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the 
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this 
proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Carl Shapiro, 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) 287-5649. Email: 
[email protected].
    Ms. Melanie Lampton, 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, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
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 Rule
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits and Costs
    D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Conventional 
Cooking Products
    3. Basis for This Proposed Rule
    C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
    A. General Comments
    B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
    C. Test Procedure
    D. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    E. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    F. 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
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Product Classes
    a. Conventional Cooking Tops
    b. Conventional Ovens
    c. Evaluated Product Classes
    2. Technology Options
    a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops

[[Page 6819]]

    b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
    c. Conventional Ovens
    B. Screening Analysis
    1. Screened-Out Technologies
    a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops
    b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
    c. Conventional Ovens
    2. Remaining Technologies
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Efficiency Analysis
    a. Conventional Cooking Tops
    b. Conventional Ovens
    2. Cost Analysis
    3. Cost-Efficiency Results
    a. Conventional Cooking Tops
    b. Conventional Ovens
    4. Manufacturer Selling Price
    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 and Gas Prices
    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. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    b. Shipments Projections
    c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    d. Markup Scenarios
    K. Emissions Analysis
    1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
    1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    a. Social Cost of Carbon
    b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
    M. Utility Impact Analysis
    N. Employment Impact Analysis
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. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    c. 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. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    C. Conclusion
    1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer 
Conventional Cooking Products Standards
    2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
    D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    3. Description of Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
    A. Participation in the Webinar
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Webinar
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency 
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6317). Title III, Part B 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, the subject of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). Furthermore, the new 
or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). EPCA also provides that not later 
than six years after issuance of any final rule establishing or 
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination 
that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice 
of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation 
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)).
    In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed 
in this document, DOE proposes new and amended energy conservation 
standards for consumer conventional cooking products. Per its authority 
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2), DOE proposes to remove the existing 
prescriptive standard for gas cooking tops prohibiting a constant 
burning pilot light. Instead, for conventional cooking tops, DOE 
proposes performance standards only, shown in Table I.1 which are the 
maximum allowable integrated annual energy consumption (``IAEC'') and 
expressed in kilowatt-hours per year (``kWh/year'') for electric 
cooking tops and thousand British thermal units per year (``kBtu/
year'') for gas cooking tops. The IAEC includes active mode, standby 
mode, and off mode energy use. These proposed standards for 
conventional cooking tops, if adopted, would apply to all product 
classes listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the 
United States starting on the date three years after the publication of 
any final rule for this rulemaking. DOE notes that constant burning 
pilot lights, which are currently prohibited under the existing 
prescriptive standard for gas cooking tops, 10 CFR 430.32(j), consume 
approximately 2,000 kBtu/year. While DOE's proposal would remove this 
prescriptive requirement from its regulations, DOE notes that, based on 
its review of the existing prescriptive standard prohibiting constant 
burning pilots for gas cooking tops, the proposed

[[Page 6820]]

performance standards of 1,204 kBtu per year for gas cooking tops would 
not be achievable by products if they were to incorporate a constant 
burning pilot.

    Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Performance Standards for
                        Conventional Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Maximum integrated annual
                Product class                  energy consumption (IAEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops....  199 kWh/year.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops.........  207 kWh/year.
Gas Cooking Tops.............................  1,204 kBtu/year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For conventional ovens, the proposed standard is a prescriptive 
design requirement for the control system of the oven. Conventional 
ovens shall not be equipped with a control system that uses a linear 
power supply. (See Table I.2). These proposed standards, if adopted, 
would apply to all conventional ovens manufactured in, or imported 
into, the United States starting on the date three years after the 
publication of the final rule for this rulemaking. DOE also notes that 
the current prescriptive standards for conventional gas ovens 
prohibiting constant burning pilot lights would continue to be 
applicable. (10 CFR 430.32(j)). Table I.2 provides a summary of the 
proposed standards for conventional ovens.

   Table I.2--Proposed Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards for
                           Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Current SNOPR
         Product class           Current standard    proposed standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard,              None.............  Shall not be equipped
 Freestanding.                                      with a control
Electric Standard, Built-In/                        system that uses
 Slide-In..                                         linear power
                                                    supply.*
Electric Self-Clean,
 Freestanding.
Electric Self-Clean, Built-In/
 Slide-In.
Gas Standard, Freestanding....  No constant        The control system
Gas Standard, Built-In/Slide-    burning pilot      for gas ovens shall:
 In..                            light.            (1) Not be equipped
Gas Self-Clean, Freestanding..                      with a constant
                                                    burning pilot light;
                                                    and
                                                   (2) Not be equipped
                                                    with a linear power
                                                    supply.*
Gas Self-Clean, Built-In/Slide-
 In.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A linear power supply produces unregulated as well as regulated 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, direct current
  output. Linear power supplies are described in section IV.C.1.b of
  this SNOPR.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

    Table I.3 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the 
proposed standards, represented by trial standard level (``TSL'') 2, on 
consumers of conventional cooking products, as measured by the average 
life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period 
(``PBP'').\3\ The shipment-weighted average LCC savings are positive 
for all product classes, and the shipment-weighted PBP is less than the 
average lifetime of consumer conventional cooking products, which is 
estimated to be 16.8 years for electric cooking products and 14.5 years 
for gas cooking products (see section IV.F.6 of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected 
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency 
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market 
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards 
(see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is 
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative 
to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document).

   Table I.3--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Conventional Cooking Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Average LCC savings     Simple payback period
                         Product class                                  (2021$)                  (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops *....................                  $0.00                      n.a.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops...........................                  13.29                       0.6
Gas Cooking Tops...............................................                  21.89                       5.0
Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding..........................                   0.99                       1.7
Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.....................                   0.95                       1.8
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding........................                   1.02                       1.7
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In...................                   1.01                       1.8
Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding...............................                   0.65                       1.9
Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In..........................                   0.59                       2.0
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding.............................                   0.70                       1.9
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In........................                   0.60                       2.0
Shipment-weighted Average **...................................                   6.75                       2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The entry ``n.a.'' means not applicable because the standard at the proposed TSL is the baseline.
** Results are weighted by projected shipments of the compliance year (2027).


[[Page 6821]]

    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on 
consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the 
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the 
end of the analysis period (2022-2056). Using a real discount rate of 
9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of consumer 
conventional cooking products in the case without new and amended 
standards is $1,607 million in 2021 dollars. Under the proposed 
standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from -9.6 percent 
to -9.4 percent, which is approximately -$154.8 million to -$150.4 
million. In order to bring products into compliance with new and 
amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total 
conversion costs of $183.4 million.
    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on 
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The 
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are 
presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021 
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation 
standards for consumer conventional cooking products would save a 
significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new and 
amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for consumer 
conventional cooking products purchased in the 30-year period that 
begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new and amended 
standards (2027-2056) amount to 0.46 quadrillion British thermal units 
(``Btu''), or quads.\5\ This represents a savings of 3.4 percent 
relative to the energy use of these products in the case without 
amended standards (referred to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy 
savings. FFC energy savings 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 efficiency standards. For more 
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer 
benefits of the proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products ranges from $0.65 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to 
$1.71 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the 
estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the 
estimated increased product and installation costs for consumer 
conventional cooking products purchased in 2027-2056.
    In addition, the proposed standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products are projected to yield significant environmental 
benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in 
cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy 
savings) of 21.9 million metric tons (``Mt'') \6\ of carbon dioxide 
(``CO2''), 2.2 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 
(``SO2''), 51.8 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 
(``NOX''), 244.9 thousand tons of methane 
(``CH4''), 0.1 thousand tons of nitrous oxide 
(``N2O''), and 0.01 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
    \7\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy 
Outlook 2022 (``AEO2022''). AEO2022 represents current federal and 
state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the 
time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for 
further discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that effect air pollutant 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in 
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social 
cost of CO2 (``SC-CO2''), the social cost of 
methane (``SC-CH4''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide 
(``SC-N2O''). Together these represent the social cost of 
GHG (``SC-GHG'').\8\ DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an 
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 
(``IWG'').\9\ The derivation of these values is discussed in section 
IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate 
benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount 
rate are estimated to be $1.17 billion. DOE does not have a single 
central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and 
value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG 
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay 
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction 
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a 
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is 
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's 
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other 
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in the 
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying 
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse 
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize 
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in 
this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction 
and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible 
under law.
    \9\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, 
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 
Washington, DC, February 2021. www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated the monetary health benefits from SO2 and 
NOX emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates 
from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this 
document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would 
be $0.61 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $1.63 billion 
using a 3-percent discount rate.\10\ DOE is currently only monetizing 
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor 
health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health 
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other 
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct 
PM2.5 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions 
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of 
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table I.4 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to 
result from the proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products. There are other important unquantified effects, including 
certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health 
benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants, direct 
PM2.5 and other emissions that affect both indoor and 
outdoor air quality, unquantified energy security benefits, and 
distributional effects, among others.

[[Page 6822]]



  Table I.4--Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy
    Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
                                 [TSL 2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Billion 2021$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.........................            2.28
Climate Benefits *......................................            1.17
Health Benefits **......................................            1.63
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger].......................            5.08
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].............            0.56
Net Monetized Benefits..................................            4.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.........................            0.95
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)...................            1.17
Health Benefits **......................................            0.61
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger].......................            2.74
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].............            0.31
Net Monetized Benefits..................................            2.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with
  consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 2027--2056. These
  results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the
  products shipped in 2027--2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
  social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
  (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent
  discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see
  section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-
  GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
  associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
  shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
  On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087)
  granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending
  appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
  Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of
  the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in
  effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
  injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the
  preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from
  ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the
  interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were
  issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of
  reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has
  reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents
  monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
  and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
  precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
  benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
  effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
  emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
  health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation
  purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
  cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount
  rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
  DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
  calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
  installation costs.

    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the 
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating 
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and 
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits 
of emission reductions, all annualized.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year 
to 2022. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed 
annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance 
year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The national operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer 
monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered 
products and are measured for the lifetime of consumer conventional 
cooking products shipped in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with 
reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are 
also calculated based on the lifetime of consumer conventional cooking 
products shipped in 2027-2056. Total benefits for both the 3-percent 
and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs 
with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG are presented for all 
four discount rates in section IV.L of this document.
    Table I.5 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs 
associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized 
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards 
proposed in this rule is $32.5 million per year in increased equipment 
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $100.8 million in 
reduced equipment operating costs, $67.0 million in climate benefits, 
and $64.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit 
would amount to $200.3 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $32.2 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are 
$130.7 million in reduced operating costs, $67.0 million in climate 
benefits, and $93.8 million in health benefits. In this case, the net 
benefit would amount to $259.2 million per year.

[[Page 6823]]



  Table I.5--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional
                                                Cooking Products
                                                     [TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Million 2021$/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Low-net-        High-net-
                                                                      Primary        benefits        benefits
                                                                     estimate        estimate        estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................           130.7           124.7           137.9
Climate Benefits *..............................................            67.0            65.3            68.4
Health Benefits **..............................................            93.8            91.4            95.6
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]...............................           291.5           281.4           301.8
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................            32.2            36.1            31.4
Net Monetized Benefits..........................................           259.2           245.2           270.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................           100.8            96.5           105.8
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)...........................            67.0            65.3            68.4
Health Benefits **..............................................            64.9            63.4            66.0
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]...............................           232.8           225.3           240.2
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................            32.5            35.8            31.8
Net Monetized Benefits..........................................           200.3           189.5           208.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped
  in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in
  2027-2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices
  from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In
  addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline
  rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods
  used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that
  the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
  document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
  at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
  estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-
  GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal
  government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
  in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
  preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
  injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
  that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
  social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Aa
  reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized
  benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability
  to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L
  of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

    DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is 
described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the 
significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to 
technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are 
already commercially available for all product classes covered by this 
proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the 
benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the 
burdens of the proposed standards. That conclusion remains true under 
any reasonable analytical assumption--i.e., the proposed standards are 
net beneficial under any discount rate (both for climate and non-
climate benefits and costs), any cost scenario, and any other scenario 
DOE analyzed. Moreover, because consumer operating cost savings and 
health benefits alone greatly exceed costs under all such assumptions 
and scenarios, DOE noted that this conclusion does not depend on 
climate benefits (though DOE's estimates of climate benefits remain 
important and robust).
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent 
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the 
proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking products is $32.5 
million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual 
benefits are $100.8 million in reduced product operating costs, $67.0 
million in climate benefits and $64.9 million in health benefits. The 
net monetized benefit amounts to $200.3 million per year.
    The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended 
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of 
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\12\ For 
example, some covered products and equipment have substantial energy 
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of 
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than 
products with

[[Page 6824]]

relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance 
of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration 
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures 
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in 
estimated national energy savings of 0.46 quads FFC, the equivalent of 
the electricity use of 19 million residential homes in one year. The 
NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy savings is $0.65 
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.71 billion using a 
discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions 
associated with these energy savings are 21.9 Mt of CO2, 2.2 
thousand tons of SO2, 51.8 thousand tons of NOX, 
0.01 tons of Hg, 244.9 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.1 
thousand tons of N2O. The estimated monetary value of the 
climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the 
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is $1.17 billion. The 
estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced 
SO2 and NOX emissions is $0.61 billion using a 7-
percent discount rate and $1.63 billion using a 3-percent discount 
rate. As such, DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the 
proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these 
tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document 
and the accompanying technical support document (``TSD'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at 
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as 
potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. 
However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of 
the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the 
projected benefits.
    Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in 
response to this document and related information collected and 
analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt 
energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either 
higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of 
level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant 
historical background related 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, 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)). EPCA further provides that, not later than six years after 
the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE 
must publish either a notice 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)(1)).
    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).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and 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 under EPCA. (See 42 
U.S.C. 6297(d)).
    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 product. (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) & 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 conventional cooking 
tops appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') 
part 430, subpart B, appendix I1 (``appendix I1''). There are currently 
no DOE test procedures for conventional ovens.
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products, including consumer conventional 
cooking products. Any new or amended standard for a covered product 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') determines is 
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A) & 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 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 proposed 
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 the manufacturers and on 
the consumers of the products subject to such 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 of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance 
expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the 
imposition of the standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) 
savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to

[[Page 6825]]

result from the imposition of the standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
    (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)).
    Further, 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)).
    Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an 
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more 
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type 
or class of product that has 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 the 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)). DOE's current test procedures for conventional 
cooking tops address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this 
rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended 
energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops that it may 
adopt. As discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE does not 
have a current test procedure for conventional ovens. As a result, a 
performance standard that addresses standby mode and off mode energy 
use is not feasible for conventional ovens. However, in this SNOPR, DOE 
is proposing to adopt prescriptive design requirements for the control 
system of conventional ovens that would address standby mode and off 
mode energy use.

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 that prohibits constant burning 
pilots for all gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking products both 
with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on and after 
April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. These standards are set forth in DOE's 
regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)-(2).
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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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 has since 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 proposed rule. A separate rulemaking is underway 
addressing energy conservation standards for microwave ovens. See 
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023/document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, EPCA requires that, not later than six 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'') document (``February 2014 RFI'') to initiate 
the mandatory review process imposed by EPCA. 79 FR 8337. 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 (``June 2015 NOPR'') 
proposing

[[Page 6826]]

new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional 
ovens. 80 FR 33030. In the June 2015 NOPR, DOE 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.
    On September 2, 2016, DOE published an SNOPR (``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 a test procedure SNOPR published on August 22, 2016 
(``August 2016 TP SNOPR;'' 81 FR 57374). 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 history of the test procedures for conventional cooking 
tops and conventional ovens is discussed in greater detail in section 
III.C of this document.)
    On December 14, 2020, DOE published a notification of proposed 
determination (``NOPD'') proposing not to amend the energy conservation 
standards for consumer conventional cooking products (``December 2020 
NOPD''). 85 FR 80982. In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE 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 held a public meeting on January 28, 2021, to solicit feedback 
from stakeholders concerning the December 2020 NOPD, and received 
comments in response to the December 2020 NOPD from the interested 
parties listed in Table II.1.

                                  Table II--December 2020 NOPD Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Commenter(s)                       Abbreviation           Docket No.          Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Adkins............................  Adkins....................              81  Individual.
Association of Home Appliance             AHAM......................              84  Trade Association.
 Manufacturers.
Lamis Ahmad.............................  Ahmad.....................              82  Individual.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San     CA IOUs...................              89  Utilities.
 Diego Gas and Electric, Southern
 California Edison, collectively, the
 California Investor-Owned Utilities.
GE Appliances...........................  GEA.......................              85  Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project,    Joint Commenters..........              87  Energy Organizations.
 Consumer Federation of America, Natural
 Resources Defense Council.
American Public Gas Association,          Joint Gas Associations....              86  Utility and Trade
 American Gas Association.                                                             Association.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance....  NEEA......................              88  Efficiency Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\15\ 
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments 
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided 
during the January 28, 2021, public meeting, DOE cites the written 
comments throughout this SNOPR. Any oral comments provided during the 
webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are 
summarized and cited separately throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products. (Docket NO. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005, which is maintained at 
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged as follows: 
(commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Basis for This Proposed Rule
    In the December 2020 NOPD, the tentative determination 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 hinged, in significant part, on 
DOE's proposal to screen out all identified technology options that 
would improve the performance of gas cooking tops to efficiencies above 
the baseline efficiency level. 85 FR 80982, 81003-81004. DOE noted in 
the December 2020 NOPD that the estimates for energy savings associated 
with a specific technology option for gas cooking tops, optimized 
burner and grate design, may vary depending on the test procedure, and 
thus DOE screened out this technology options from further analysis of 
gas cooking tops. Id. at 85 FR 81004. As discussed in section III.C of 
this document, at the time of the December 2020 NOPD, DOE had withdrawn 
its test procedure for conventional cooking tops. However, DOE 
additionally stated in the December 2020 NOPD that it would reevaluate 
the energy savings associated with this technology option if it 
considered performance standards in a future rulemaking. Id.
    On August 22, 2022, DOE published a final rule (``August 2022 TP 
Final Rule'') establishing a test procedure for conventional cooking 
tops, at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I1, ``Uniform Test Method 
for the Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking 
Products.'' 87 FR 51492. As a result, in this SNOPR, DOE is 
reevaluating the energy savings associated with the optimized burner 
and grate design technology option for conventional gas cooking tops 
and has tentatively found that amended energy conservation standards 
for consumer conventional cooking products are economically justified 
and would result in a significant conservation of energy.
    As discussed in section III.C of this document, this SNOPR 
specifically further differs from the September 2016 SNOPR in that the 
performance standards evaluated for conventional cooking tops are based 
on the new appendix I1 test procedure, rather than on the now-withdrawn 
former appendix I.

C. Deviation From Appendix A

    In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the 
provision in appendix A regarding the NOPR stage for an energy 
conservation standard rulemaking. Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A 
specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will 
vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but 
will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this SNOPR, DOE has opted 
to instead

[[Page 6827]]

provide a 60-day comment period. DOE requested comment in the February 
2014 RFI on the technical and economic analyses and provided 
stakeholders a 60-day comment period, after publishing the comment 
period extension. Additionally, DOE provided a 30-day comment period 
for the September 2016 SNOPR with an extension to 60 days, and a 75-day 
comment period for the December 2020 NOPD. 81 FR 60784, 81 FR 67219, 85 
FR 80982. DOE has relied on many of the same analytical assumptions and 
approaches as used in the September 2016 SNOPR and December 2020 NOPD. 
As such, DOE believes a 60-day comment period is appropriate and will 
provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on 
the proposed rule.

III. General Discussion

    DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written 
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent 
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues 
raised by these commenters.

A. General Comments

    This section summarizes general comments received from interested 
parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.
    GEA supported the comments submitted by AHAM and incorporated them 
by reference. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 1).
    AHAM stated that the 2017 statutory deadline to publish a final 
rule regarding consumer conventional cooking product energy 
conservation standards has passed, and that DOE should not hold this 
rule open and should finalize a determination not to amend the 
standard. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4). AHAM commented that it is 
disingenuous of other commenters to simultaneously challenge DOE for 
failing to timely meet an obligation while also urging it to further 
delay meeting that same obligation. (Id.) AHAM added that, should DOE 
believe energy conservation standards based on measured efficiency 
could be justified once a reliable test procedure exists, DOE can 
propose a rule at any time after the publication of the determination 
not to amend the standard, although AHAM questioned whether such a 
standard would be justified under EPCA. (Id.) AHAM further noted that 
EPCA requires that DOE re-evaluate its determination not to amend the 
standard within 3 years of the issuance of that determination. 42 
U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B). (Id.)
    GEA commented that DOE's actions on this standard are long past 
due. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2).
    The CA IOUs urged DOE to consider the implications of the December 
2020 NOPD on the Executive Order 13990 and the announcement that the 
DOE would be re-examining the withdrawal of the cooking top test 
procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 5)
    In the most recent stage of this rulemaking, DOE published the 
December 2020 NOPD in which it tentatively concluded that new and 
amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products would not be economically justified and would not result in a 
significant conservation of energy, in part because it was unable to 
evaluate certain technology options for gas cooking tops in the absence 
of a test procedure for these products. 85 FR 80982. The test procedure 
established in the August 2022 TP Final Rule, discussed in more detail 
in section III.C of this document, provides testing results upon which 
these SNOPR analyses for conventional cooking tops were based. DOE 
reevaluated its analyses as quickly as possible once the test procedure 
was finalized. President Biden's Executive Order 13990, which addresses 
the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gases, are discussed in 
section IV.L of this document.
    The Joint Gas Associations agreed with the DOE's tentative 
determination in the December 2020 NOPD that no new standards are 
justified. (Joint Gas Associations, No. 86 at pp. 2-3). The Joint Gas 
Associations further supported the December 2020 NOPD's tentative 
determination that neither of the February 2020 Process Rule's 
thresholds for significant energy savings are met for TSL 2 or TSL 1 
for consumer conventional cooking products. (Id.)
    The Joint Commenters expressed concern that DOE indicated it was in 
the process of revising the Process Rule, yet the Department cited the 
energy savings thresholds from the February 2020 Process Rule to 
justify the proposed determination of no amended standards. (Joint 
Commenters, No. 87 at p. 1). The Joint Commenters added that with 
billions of consumer savings at risk, DOE should not move forward with 
this determination until DOE completed the indicated revisions to the 
Process Rule. (Id.) The Joint Commenters further commented that DOE 
should eliminate the energy savings thresholds as part of the Process 
Rule revision in order to ensure that critical energy and utility bill 
savings are not lost. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 2).
    In evaluating the significance of the estimated energy savings for 
the December 2020 NOPD, DOE applied a two-part numeric threshold test 
that was then applicable under section 6(b) of appendix A to 10 CFR 
part 430 subpart C (Jan. 1, 2021 edition).\16\ Specifically, the 
threshold required that an energy conservation standard result in a 
0.30 quads reduction in site energy use over a 30-year analysis period 
or a 10-percent reduction in site energy use over that same period. See 
85 FR 8626, 8670 (Feb. 14, 2020). In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE stated 
that the estimated site energy savings at the max-tech level evaluated 
at that time was 0.57 quads, which exceeded the 0.3-quads threshold, 
but expressed concern that this TSL might 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. 85 FR 80982, 81053. (See section 
III.C of this document for discussion of the repeal of the conventional 
oven test procedure.) DOE then evaluated the next lower TSL than max-
tech and estimated that it would save an estimated 0.22 quads of site 
energy over the evaluation period, which would represent a 4.9-percent 
decrease in the site energy use of the evaluated products. Id. That 
estimated site energy savings would not reach the 0.3 quad-threshold or 
the 10-percent site energy saving threshold enumerated in section 6(b) 
of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C (Jan. 1, 2021 edition). 
Accordingly, DOE tentatively determined in the December 2020 NOPD that 
new or amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products would not result in significant conservation of energy 
and be economically justified. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ DOE established the numeric threshold test in section 6(b) 
of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C in a final rule published 
on February 14, 2020. 85 FR 8626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 13, 2021, DOE published in the Federal Register, a 
final rule that amended appendix A. 86 FR 70892 (``December 2021 Final 
Rule''). The December 2021 Final Rule, in part, removed the numeric 
threshold in section 6(b) of appendix A for determining when the 
significant energy savings criterion is met, reverting to DOE's prior 
practice of making such determinations on a case-by-case basis. 86 FR 
70892.
    Adkins commented that many consumer cooking products are already

[[Page 6828]]

operating at near peak capabilities and added that introducing stronger 
regulations on consumer cooking products would increase the cost of 
these products for consumers, lowering consumption with little to no 
positive environmental impact. (Adkins, No. 81 at p. 1)
    Ahmad commented that DOE's tentative determination of no economic 
justification for cooking products may still be valid because of a lack 
of significant technological advancements since the September 2016 
SNOPR. (Ahmad, No. 82 at p. 1)
    AHAM stated that no significant changes have occurred to justify 
new standards since the April 2009 Final Rule that determined that 
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products were not justified. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4)
    GEA stated that consumer conventional cooking products use little 
energy compared to other DOE regulated products and therefore DOE's 
limited resources are better served on products for whom greater energy 
savings is feasible. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2) GEA supported DOE's proposed 
determination not to amend standards. (Id.)
    The Joint Gas Associations agreed with DOE's tentative 
determination in the December 2020 NOPD that a potential amended 
standard based on TSL 3 would result in a negative net present value, a 
negative INPV range, a potential unavailability of certain product 
types for conventional ovens, and a loss of certain functions that 
provide utility to customers, and that a potential standard at TSL 3 is 
not economically justified. (Joint Gas Associations, No. 86 at p. 3) 
The Joint Gas Associations further stated that any potential positive 
impacts from an amended standard at TSL 3 are not outweighed by these 
estimated negative impacts. (Id.)
    The Joint Commenters commented that, without the February 2020 
Process Rule thresholds, adopting standards at TSL 2 from the December 
2020 NOPD could provide full-fuel cycle savings of 0.6 quads and 
consumer savings of up to $3.7 billion. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 
2) The Joint Commenters added that adopting standards at the TSL 2 from 
the December 2020 NOPD would provide full-fuel-cycle energy savings of 
0.28 quads and NPV savings of up to $2 billion for electric smooth 
element cooking tops with an incremental cost of only $3, and would 
achieve full-fuel-cycle energy savings of 0.1 quads and NPV savings of 
up to $730 million for self-cleaning freestanding conventional electric 
ovens with an incremental cost of $1. (Id. referencing 85 FR 80982, 
81049-81050).
    NEEA commented that according to the 2015 RECS, while cooking 
represents a small amount of overall home energy use (1.4 percent in 
residential electricity use and 2.9 percent in residential gas use), 
when combined with the potential individual unit savings for cooking 
tops shown in the December 2020 NOPD and external testing, performance-
based standards for cooking tops could lead to significant national 
energy savings. (NEEA, No. 88 at p. 3) NEEA noted that DOE's testing 
showed that conventional gas cooking tops with similar average burner 
input rates can vary in annual energy use by as much as 27 percent, and 
conventional oven efficiency for units with similar input rates varied 
by 11 percent and 19 percent for gas and electric units, respectively. 
(Id. referencing 85 FR 80982, 81008-81009) NEEA also noted that DOE 
found potential energy savings on average of 24 percent for induction 
electric cooking tops compared to a baseline smooth element electric 
cooking top. NEEA commented that this is in line with recent testing 
conducted by the Food Service Technology Center,\17\ which found a 23-
percent efficiency improvement. (Id. referencing 85 FR 80982, 81035) 
NEEA recommended that DOE proceed with updated standards for cooking 
tops and conventional ovens once the test procedure has been updated, 
commenting that this would allow DOE to consider performance-based 
standards for cooking tops and conventional ovens that harness energy 
efficiency opportunities, which could not be fully achieved through the 
prescriptive standards considered in the December 2020 NOPD (Id.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Frontier Energy. Residential Cooktop Performance and Energy 
Comparison Study. July 2019. Page 11. Available at 
www.buildingdecarb.org/uploads/3/0/7/3/30734489/induction_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs commented that, given the recent shift in consumer 
behavior, there is a high likelihood that a reanalysis of the TSL 2 
defined in the December 2020 NOPD based on more recent cooking 
frequency data would lead to site savings greater than 0.3 quads, 
exceeding the February 2020 Process Rule's significant energy savings 
threshold. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at pp. 3-4)
    EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standards 
prescribed by DOE for any type (or class) of covered product be 
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency (or 
for certain products, water efficiency) which the Secretary determines 
is technologically feasible and economically justified. Upon the 
finalization of a new test procedure for consumer conventional cooking 
products, DOE reevaluated its analysis from the December 2020 NOPD, 
including its tentative determination at that time to screen out the 
technology option for improved burner and grate design. DOE is updating 
its tentative conclusions in this SNOPR to reflect the use of optimized 
burners and grates on gas cooking tops to achieve higher efficiencies. 
See section IV.A.2 and section IV.B of this document, as well as 
chapters 3 and 4 of the TSD for this SNOPR for additional information 
on this technology option and screening analysis. DOE also updated its 
information regarding the prevalence of baseline technologies in 
conventional ovens on the market. See section IV.F.8 of this document 
and chapter 7 of the TSD for this SNOPR. Pursuant to these updates and 
others outlined in this SNOPR, DOE revised its analysis regarding the 
technological feasibility and economic justification of new and amended 
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products and presents a summary of the results in section V of this 
SNOPR.

B. 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 \18\ and/or one or more heating compartments. 10 CFR 
430.2. DOE is not considering energy

[[Page 6829]]

conservation standards for microwave ovens as part of this proposed 
rulemaking.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The term surface unit refers to burners for gas cooking 
tops and electric resistance heating elements or inductive heating 
elements for electric cooking tops.
    \19\ See www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023/document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.C of this document, DOE's new test 
procedure for conventional cooking tops in appendix I1 measures the 
energy use of commercial-style gas cooking tops with high burner input 
rates. DOE also repealed the conventional oven test procedure in a 
final rule published on December 16, 2016 (``December 2016 TP Final 
Rule''). 81 FR 91418.
    In the December 2020 NOPD, in the absence of Federal test 
procedures to measure the energy use or energy efficiency of 
conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens, DOE evaluated 
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. 85 FR 80982, 
80988. In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE stated that it 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. Id. In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE did 
not propose a separate product class for gas cooking tops and ovens 
with higher burner input rates that are marketed as ``commercial-
style'' and did not propose separate definitions for these products. 
Id.
    Adkins supported higher standards for industrial cooking equipment 
and stated that the degree of energy saved by an individual consumer is 
minimal when compared to that of an entire business or corporation. 
(Adkins, No. 81 at p. 1)
    Ahmad commented that microwave ovens should be the subject of 
amended energy conservation standards due to widespread use in the U.S. 
(Ahmad, No. 82 at p. 1)
    The scope of this rulemaking is limited to cooking products. As 
defined in 10 CFR 430.2, ``cooking products'' are 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 and/or one or more heating compartments. Industrial 
cooking equipment and microwave ovens are not in the scope of this 
proposed rule.
    In this SNOPR, DOE is proposing to define a portable conventional 
cooking top as a conventional cooking top designed to be moved from 
place to place. Using this definition, DOE is proposing that the 
proposed standards for conventional cooking tops would apply to 
portable models according to their means of heating (gas, electric open 
(coil) element, or electric smooth element).
    DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for portable 
conventional cooking top and DOE's proposal to include portable 
conventional cooking tops in the existing product classes. DOE also 
seeks data and information on its initial determination not to 
differentiate conventional cooking tops on the basis of portability 
when considering product classes for this SNOPR analysis.

C. 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. DOE's 
current energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products are prescriptive standards that prohibits constant burning 
pilots for all gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking products both 
with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on and after 
April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. (See 10 CFR 430.32(j)(2).)
    DOE established test procedures for consumer conventional cooking 
products 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 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

[[Page 6830]]

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 
\20\ labeling program for cooking products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For more information on the EnergyGuide labeling program, 
see: consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-use-energyguide-label-shop-home-appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 
satisfying 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)). DOE 
published a final rule on October 31, 2012 (``October 2012 TP Final 
Rule''), adopting standby and off mode provisions. 77 FR 65942.
    Prior to the June 2015 NOPR, DOE issued two notices requesting 
comment on the test procedures for cooking products. On January 30, 
2013, DOE published a NOPR (``January 2013 TP NOPR'') proposing 
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; i.e., conventional cooking tops equipped with 
induction heating technology for one or more surface units on the 
cooking top. 78 FR 6232. 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.
    On December 3, 2014, DOE issued a second notice requesting comment 
on the test procedures for cooking products (``December 2014 TP 
SNOPR''). 79 FR 71894. 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). Id. 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.
    On July 2, 2015, DOE published a test procedure final rule (``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. 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'' \21\ 
(``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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Hob is the British English term for cooking top.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE published an SNOPR on August 22, 2016 (``August 2016 TP 
SNOPR'') that proposed amendments to the test procedures for 
conventional cooking tops. 81 FR 57374. 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'' \22\ (``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 6831]]

    As discussed previously, for the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE 
evaluated its proposed energy conservation standards for conventional 
cooking tops based on the cooking top test procedure proposed in the 
August 2016 TP SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 60797. 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 previously, DOE proposed in the September 2016 
SNOPR prescriptive design requirements for the control system of 
conventional ovens. 81 FR 60784, 60794.
    On December 16, 2016, DOE published a final rule repealing the test 
procedures for conventional ovens, 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; \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 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 December 2016 TP 
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 18, 2020, DOE published a final rule (``August 2020 TP 
Final Rule'') withdrawing 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. 
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 was 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.
    As discussed, DOE published the August 2022 TP Final Rule 
establishing a test procedure for conventional cooking tops, at 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix I1, ``Uniform Test Method for the 
Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking Products.'' 87 
FR 51492. The test procedure adopted the latest version of the relevant 
industry standard published by IEC, Standard 60350-2 (Edition 2.0 2017-
08), ``Household electric cooking appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Methods for 
measuring performance'' (``IEC 60350-2:2017''), for electric cooking 
tops with modifications including adapting the test method to gas 
cooking tops, normalizing the energy use of each test cycle to a 
consistent final water temperature, and including a measurement of 
standby mode and off mode energy use. 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 oven test procedure 
and is evaluating new prescriptive design requirements for the control 
system of conventional ovens, while proposing to maintain the existing 
prescriptive design requirements for conventional gas ovens. As a 
result, the prescriptive design requirements would not require 
manufacturers to test using the DOE test procedure to certify 
conventional ovens.
    Furthermore, since DOE is proposing to adopt prescriptive design 
requirements that would not require a test procedure for conventional 
ovens, DOE tentatively concludes that no test procedures for 
conventional ovens are needed at this time. If finalized, this 
tentative determination would satisfy the EPCA requirement at 42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(1)(A) that requires the Secretary to review test procedures for 
all covered products, including conventional ovens, every 7 years and 
either amend those test procedures or publish in the Federal Register 
of a determination not to amend the test procedure. The last time the 
conventional ovens test procedure was evaluated was as part of the 
December 2016 Final Rule, which repealed the existing test procedure 
for conventional ovens. Therefore, if DOE were to proceed, it would 
need to finalize its determination by December 16, 2023.
    AHAM stated that the absence of a test procedure to measure 
efficiency for cooking tops and conventional ovens is sufficient 
grounds upon which to justify a determination not to amend standards 
beyond the existing design standards (AHAM, No. 84 at pp. 2-3). AHAM 
added that EPCA does not allow DOE to prescribe amended or new 
standards without a final test procedure in place (Id. referencing 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)).
    EPCA's requirement that the Secretary may not prescribe an amended 
or new standard if a test procedure has not been prescribed does not 
apply to dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, and kitchen 
ranges and ovens, the subject of this rulemaking (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A)).
    AHAM commented that it was working on a test procedure to measure 
the efficiency of cooking tops and conventional ovens (AHAM, No. 84 at 
p. 3). AHAM added that DOE and some efficiency advocates have been 
included in the task force that is developing the test. (Id.) AHAM 
stated that the goals of its cooking top and conventional oven test 
procedures are to address the technical issues in the previous cooking 
top and conventional oven test procedures, which ultimately resulted in 
their withdrawal, and to develop new test procedures that are accurate, 
repeatable, and reproducible. (Id.) AHAM suggested that DOE would be

[[Page 6832]]

able to adopt both procedures in their entirety in a future rulemaking. 
(Id.)
    In response to DOE's notification of the White House Office of 
Management and Budget (``OMB'') that it would review its withdrawal of 
the cooking top test procedure, AHAM urged DOE not to consume its 
resources in considering to reinstate the withdrawn cooking top test 
procedure and stated that DOE should continue to work with AHAM and 
efficiency advocates to develop a new collaborative cooking top test 
procedure which would provide certainty as DOE proceeds with a future 
standards rulemaking process, shorten the time needed to finalize a 
test method, and satisfy the goals of Executive Order 13990. (AHAM, No. 
84 at p. 3)
    GEA supported DOE's proposed determination not to amend standards 
because there is no current test procedure for consumer conventional 
cooking products. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2) GEA stated that the previously 
withdrawn test procedures were not reliable or reproducible. (Id.) GEA 
stated that it is working closely with the AHAM task force dedicated to 
developing a reliable, repeatable, and reproducible test procedure for 
consumer conventional cooking products. (Id.)
    The Joint Commenters stated that DOE must establish test procedures 
for cooking products and complete the revision of the Process Rule 
prior to proceeding with a determination for cooking products 
standards. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 1) The Joint Commenters 
noted that performance-based standards have the potential to achieve 
significantly greater savings than prescriptive requirements, and that 
DOE should focus on establishing test procedures rather than use 
repealed test procedures to evaluate potential standard levels. (Id.)
    NEEA recommended that DOE conduct further testing as needed and 
issue updated test procedures for both cooking tops and conventional 
ovens, given the significant potential energy savings from performance 
standards for both product categories. (NEEA, No. 88 at pp. 1-2) NEEA 
recommended that DOE conduct additional testing to resolve the 
discrepancies found during former testing and develop a revised test 
procedure for conventional cooking tops as soon as possible. (NEEA, No. 
88 at p. 2) NEEA stated that all concerns submitted in AHAM's petition 
for the withdrawal of the cooking top test procedure (concern over the 
lack of defined tolerance for staying ``as close as possible'' to 194 
degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F'') in the test procedure, variability in 
energy consumption during the simmer phase, and variability in 
determining the turn down temperature and setting) can be addressed by 
setting appropriate tolerances on these variables. (Id.) NEEA further 
noted that the test method that was referenced in the 2016 test 
procedure, EN 60350-2-2013, has been updated since the December 2016 TP 
Final Rule and the revised test method may serve as an additional 
resource in developing an updated test procedure that is 
representative, repeatable, and reproducible. (NEEA, No. 88 at pp. 2-3) 
NEEA recommended that DOE consider ASTM Standard F1521 in updating the 
test procedure, which has been used by the Food Service Technology 
Center to conduct testing on conventional cooking top performance and 
efficiency and is currently being updated for ASTM Committee F26 on 
Food Service Equipment. (NEEA, No. 88 at p. 2)
    The CA IOUs believe that the withdrawn cooking top test procedure 
is adequately repeatable and that it should be re-examined. (CA IOUs, 
No. 89 at p. 2) The CA IOUs stated they believe the discrepancies 
presented in the AHAM Withdrawal Petition are, in part, due to specific 
test method employed during AHAM's testing. (Id.) The CA IOUs continued 
that because the test data which was used to withdraw the test 
procedure did not use the ambient condition \24\ specifications of the 
test procedure in question, DOE should pursue robust round robin 
testing to uncover the true reproducibility values associated with the 
test procedure. (Id.) In the August 2020 TP Final Rule, DOE cited 
authority to withdraw the cooking products test procedure under 42 
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), noting that ``DOE has the authority to withdraw a 
test procedure that is not representative of an average use cycle or 
period of use and is unduly burdensome to conduct.'' (Id.) In response, 
the CA IOUs commented that they believe the authority to act on an 
unrepresentative test procedure lies in 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2), which 
only grants DOE the authority to prescribe or amend a test procedure, 
not to withdraw a test procedure in its entirety. (Id.) The CA IOUs 
requested that DOE consider reinstating the test procedure and using 
the performance-based analysis therein. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ AHAM's petition noted that some of the test labs 
participating in the round robin testing were unable to meet the 
ambient conditions of ``2 [deg]F'' specified in the DOE 
test procedure, and therefore ran tests at 5 [deg]F in 
their laboratories. (EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004-0003) DOE notes that the 
test procedure finalized in the December 2016 TP Final Rule required 
ambient conditions of 2 [deg]Celsius (``[deg]C''), which 
is equivalent to 5 [deg]F, the specification used by 
AHAM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE acknowledges that a test procedure is necessary to evaluate the 
performance of, and to adopt performance standards for, cooking tops. 
As discussed previously, since the December 2020 NOPD, DOE has 
published a test procedure final rule establishing test procedures for 
cooking tops. In this SNOPR, DOE has analyzed performance-based 
standards for cooking tops, measured according to new appendix I1.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, 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 
rulemaking. 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(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix 
A.
    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(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. 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 rulemaking. For further details on the 
screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the TSD for 
this SNOPR.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class 
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency or maximum reduction in

[[Page 6833]]

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 rulemaking are described in section IV.C 
of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each trial standard level (i.e., 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 proposed standards (2027-2056).\25\ The savings are 
measured over the entire lifetime of consumer conventional cooking 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each 
product class. The TSLs considered for this SNOPR are described in 
section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis 
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model 
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended or 
new 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 national energy savings 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 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.\26\ 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.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 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
    To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE 
must determine that such action would result in significant energy 
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended 
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of 
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\27\ For 
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy 
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of 
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than 
products with relatively constant demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of 
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14, 
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule 
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70924).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a 
case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative 
FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, 
and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other 
factors. DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the 
proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    As noted previously, 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 rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on 
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J 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) 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 LCC and 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 of 
the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular 
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on 
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected 
disproportionately by a standard.
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 expense (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

[[Page 6834]]

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 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 III.E 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 proposed in this document would not 
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration 
in this rulemaking.
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 nature and extent of the impact. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed 
rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of 
Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this issue. DOE will 
publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the 
final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the 
competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. 
In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ 
regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for 
information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    DOE also considers the need for national energy and water 
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy 
savings from the proposed standards are likely to 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. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how 
standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as 
discussed in section IV.M of this document.
    DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits 
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take 
into account when considering the need for national energy 
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in 
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air 
pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production and 
use, including in-home emissions reductions experienced by consumers, 
and their families. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how 
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section 
IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in 
section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value 
of climate and health benefits from certain emissions reductions 
resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of 
this document.
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 effects 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.9 of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

    This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this 
rulemaking with regard to consumer conventional cooking products. 
Separate paragraphs address each component of DOE's analyses.
    DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the 
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet 
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new 
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a 
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and 
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total 
consumer

[[Page 6835]]

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: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document. Additionally, DOE used output from the latest 
version of the Energy Information Administration's (``EIA's'') Annual 
Energy Outlook (``AEO''), a widely known energy projection for the 
United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

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 rulemaking 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 
SNOPR for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Product Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
may establish separate standards for a group of covered products (i.e., 
establish a separate product class) if DOE determines that separate 
standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE 
determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related 
features that justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 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. (Id.)
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 top 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 can 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''): \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The TSD from the previous residential cooking products 
standards rulemaking is available at: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2006-STD-0127/document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 December 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to maintain the product 
classes for conventional cooking tops from the previous standards 
rulemaking, as discussed. 85 FR 80982, 80995. DOE also proposed to 
consider induction heating as a technology option for electric smooth 
element cooking tops rather than as a separate product class. Id. 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. Id. 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 electric smooth element cooking tops with electric 
resistance heating elements. 81 FR 60784, 60801.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding induction technologies 
in response to the December 2020 NOPD.
    In addition to the reasons presented in the December 2020 NOPD and 
discussed previously, DOE recognizes that induction cooking tops are 
only compatible with ferromagnetic cooking vessels. However, DOE does 
not identify any consumer utility unique to any specific type of 
cookware that would warrant establishing separate product classes. As 
discussed in chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR, DOE considered the 
cost of replacing cookware as part of the LCC analysis. DOE also 
conducted standby testing on full-surface induction cooking tops. Based 
on DOE's testing, the sensors required to detect the presence of a pot 
placed on the cooking surface do not remain active while the product is 
in standby mode. In addition, DOE notes that the standby power required 
for the tested model (0.25 watts (``W'')) was below the average standby 
power for other electric cooking tops in DOE's test sample (2.25 W). 
For these reasons, DOE is not considering a separate product class for 
induction cooking products.
Commercial-Style Cooking Tops
    Based on DOE's review of conventional gas cooking tops available on 
the market, DOE determined for December 2020 NOPD that products 
marketed as commercial-style cannot be distinguished from standard 
residential-style products based on performance characteristics or 
consumer utility. 85 FR 80982, 80995. 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. Id.
    As part of the December 2020 NOPD, 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. Id. 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, according to 
the test procedure established in the December 2016 TP Final Rule and 
determined that there was no statistically significant correlation 
between burner input rate and the ratio of surface unit energy 
consumption to

[[Page 6836]]

test load mass \29\ for cooking tops marketed as either residential-
style or commercial-style. 81 FR 60783, 60801-60802. 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. Id. 
at 81 FR 60802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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 December 2020 NOPD that the presence of 
certain features, such as heavy cast-iron grates and multiple high-
input rate burners (``HIR burners''), may help consumers perceive a 
difference between commercial-style and residential-style gas cooking 
top performance. 85 FR 80982, 80996. 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. Id. 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. Id. 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. Id. While DOE stated 
in the December 2020 NOPD that it 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. 
Id. Moreover, DOE also stated that 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. Id. DOE noted that there are many 
residential-style cooking tops with one to two HIR burners and 
continuous cast-iron grates that provide consumers with the ability to 
sear food at high temperatures and simmer at low temperatures. Id. For 
these reasons, DOE did not propose in the December 2020 NOPD to 
establish a separate product class for gas cooking tops marketed as 
commercial-style or conventional gas cooking tops with higher burner 
input rates. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding commercial-style gas 
cooking tops in response to the December 2020 NOPD.
    For this SNOPR analysis, DOE further considered whether separate 
product classes for commercial-style cooking tops are warranted by 
comparing the test energy consumption of burners in a sample of cooking 
tops tested by DOE according to new appendix I1. DOE measured energy 
consumption of gas burners in a sample of 24 gas cooking tops, which 
included 11 products marketed as commercial-style. The number of 
burners per cooking top ranged from four to six.
    DOE's testing, as presented in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR, 
showed that energy consumption for gas cooking tops continues to be 
more closely related to burner and grate design rather than input rate, 
as it was in the September 2016 SNOPR analysis.
    Based on both review of the market and comments from manufacturers, 
DOE recognizes that the presence of certain features, such as heavy 
cast-iron grates and multiple HIR burners, may help consumers perceive 
a difference between commercial-style and residential-style gas cooking 
top performance. However, DOE continues to not be aware of clearly 
defined, consistent design differences and corresponding utility 
provided by commercial-style gas cooking tops as compared to 
residential-style gas cooking tops. Although DOE's testing indicates 
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. In addition, 
there are many residential-style cooking tops with one to two HIR 
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 commercial-style gas cooking tops.
    However, as discussed in sections IV.B.1.b and IV.C.1.a of this 
document, DOE conducted its engineering analysis consistent with 
products currently available on the market and only evaluated 
efficiency levels for gas cooking tops that maintain the features 
available in conventional cooking tops marketed as commercial-style 
(e.g., at least one HIR burners, continuous cast-iron gates, etc.) that 
may be used to differentiate these products in the marketplace.
Downdraft Cooking Tops
    DOE is aware of conventional cooking tops, including the cooking 
top portion of conventional ranges, which incorporate venting systems 
which draw air, combustion products, steam, smoke, grease, odors, and 
other cooking emissions across the surface of the cooking top and 
through a vent ducted to the outdoors (``downdraft venting systems''). 
The fan in downdraft venting systems may be activated automatically any 
time the cooking top is being operated, through a control algorithm 
that determines when the fan should be activated, or by means of 
consumer selection. Because indoor air quality (``IAQ'') related to 
cooking emissions is the subject of increasing attention and 
concern,\30\ and because venting systems designed to specifically 
exhaust the emissions from conventional cooking products have been 
shown to significantly improve IAQ in homes,\31\ building codes in 
certain local jurisdictions mandate the use of venting systems for 
conventional cooking products.\32\ Although these venting systems may 
be external to and separate from the conventional cooking product 
(i.e., a vent hood over a conventional cooking top or a separate 
downdraft venting unit built into a countertop), venting may also be 
accomplished by means of a downdraft venting system incorporated 
integrally in a conventional cooking top. According to DOE's review of 
products on the market and discussions with manufacturers, the 
prevalence of conventional cooking tops with integral downdraft venting 
systems is increasing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, for example, the discussion and recommendations 
addressing ``Indoor Air Pollution from Cooking'' by the California 
Air Resources Board, available at: ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/indoor-air-pollution-cooking.
    \31\ Militello-Hourigan, R.E. and Miller, S.L., ``The impacts of 
cooking and an assessment of indoor air quality in Colorado passive 
and tightly constructed homes,'' Building and Environment, October 
15, 2018. Vol. 144, pp. 573-582. Research indicated that fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations from cooking 
activity in homes could be reduced by at least 75 percent through 
the use of a directly exhausting conventional range hood.
    \32\ See, for example, Section 15.16.020 ``Domestic Range Hoods 
and Vents'' of the San Clemente, California, Mechanical Code, which 
requires that ``[k]itchen range hoods shall be installed for cooking 
facilities with an approved forced-draft system of ventilation 
vented to the outside of the building.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy consumption of an integral downdraft venting system, 
including the fan and, in some cases, a motor to move the inlet duct 
into position during operation, increases the total annual energy 
consumption of a conventional cooking top. At this time, DOE does not 
have information

[[Page 6837]]

regarding the operating patterns or consumer usage of downdraft venting 
systems in conventional cooking tops that would allow it to 
characterize representative energy use. Therefore, recognizing the 
importance of IAQ issues and rapidly evolving market demands, and so as 
to not impede innovation in this area, DOE has not evaluated the energy 
consumption of downdraft venting systems nor is proposing to establish 
separate product classes for conventional cooking tops with downdraft 
venting systems in this SNOPR. DOE will continue to collect information 
on such cooking tops and may consider the impacts in a future 
rulemaking.
    Alternatively, DOE could consider specifying an adder to the 
maximum allowable IAEC value in the energy conservation standards for 
conventional cooking tops with a downdraft venting system, which would 
account for the energy consumption of the fan and any motor operation 
during active mode and any standby mode or off mode power consumption 
specifically associated with the downdraft venting system.
    DOE seeks comment on the impacts of downdraft venting systems on 
energy consumption and associated data about such impacts. DOE further 
requests comment on its proposal to not include the energy consumption 
of any downdraft venting system in the energy conservation standards 
for conventional cooking tops.
Single-Zone Conventional Cooking Tops
    DOE notes that some conventional cooking tops are distributed in 
commerce with only a single cooking zone with a relatively high input 
power for electric cooking tops or high burner input rate for gas 
cooking tops. Single-cooking zone cooking tops do not provide the 
ability for consumers to cook multiple food loads at the same time and, 
particularly for gas cooking tops, may not operate over the full range 
of input rates associated with all typical cooking processes for which 
a conventional cooking top is used (e.g., boiling, saut[eacute]ing, 
simmering, reheating) or accommodate the complete range of typical 
cookware sizes. To achieve this full functionality, conventional 
cooking tops with single cooking zones are typically used in 
conjunction with one or more additional conventional cooking tops to 
provide the consumer with the choice of the number and type of cooking 
zones to use. Indeed, DOE observes that manufacturers of single-zone 
cooking tops that are not portable conventional cooking tops also 
typically manufacture and market comparable dual-zone cooking tops with 
similar construction and design features, and consumers may choose to 
install non-portable single-zone cooking units in combination with one 
or more of such comparable dual-zone units to achieve full cooking 
functionality. As a result, DOE expects that evaluating the IAEC of a 
single-zone non-portable cooking top by itself would not be 
representative of the average use of the product, and therefore 
proposes that a more representative value of IAEC would be based on a 
tested configuration of the typical combination of a single-zone 
cooking top paired with one or more additional cooking tops, such that 
the combination of conventional cooking tops in aggregate provides 
complete functionality to the consumer.
    Based on DOE's review of commercially available products, single-
zone and dual-zone non-portable cooking tops typically range in width 
from 12 inches to 15 inches; DOE therefore proposes that the most 
representative pairing for the tested configuration of a single-zone 
cooking top would be the combination of one single-zone cooking top and 
one comparable dual-zone cooking top, because the overall width of the 
combination would not exceed the width of typical conventional cooking 
tops with four to six cooking zones (24 inches to 36 inches) and 
because this is the minimum number of such cooking tops that would 
ensure complete functionality as previously described. Based on its 
expectation that consumers will select, to the extent possible, 
matching products for this combination, DOE proposes to define the 
tested configuration of a single-zone non-portable cooking top as the 
single-zone unit along with the same manufacturer's dual-zone non-
portable cooking top unit within the same product class and with 
similar design characteristics (e.g., construction materials, user 
interface), and use the same heating technology (i.e., gas flame, 
electric resistive heating, or electric inductive heating) and energy 
source (e.g., voltage, gas type). DOE expects that these products 
comprising the test configuration typically would be marketed as being 
within the same ``product line'' by manufacturers. In instances where 
the manufacturer's product line contains more than one dual-zone non-
portable cooking top unit, DOE proposes that the dual-zone unit with 
the least energy consumption, as measured using appendix I1, be 
selected for the tested configuration, which along with the single-zone 
counterpart, would span the full range of expected per-cooking zone 
energy efficiency performance.
    In the approach DOE is proposing, the representative IAEC of the 
single-zone non-portable cooking top would factor in the performance of 
the two additional cooking zones included in the dual-zone cooking top 
that is part of the tested configuration. That is, the IAEC would be 
based on the average active mode performance of the three cooking zones 
comprising the tested configuration. Because the single-zone non-
portable cooking top contains one of the three burners, while the 
comparable dual-zone cooking top contains two, DOE additionally 
proposes that the IAEC of the single-zone non-portable cooking top unit 
under consideration be calculated as the weighted average of the 
measured IAEC of the single-zone cooking top and the IAEC dual-zone 
cooking top in the tested configuration, using the number of cooking 
zones as the basis for the weighting factors; i.e., the single-zone 
IAEC would have a weighting of \1/3\ and the dual-zone IAEC would have 
a weighting of \2/3\. Recognizing that the dual-zone cooking top in the 
tested configuration would already be separately tested to determine 
its IAEC value for certification purposes, to minimize testing burden 
associated with this approach, DOE is proposing that the represented 
IAEC value of the dual-zone cooking top (determined separately) would 
be used in the calculation of the single-zone cooking top's represented 
IAEC value (i.e., DOE is not requiring the dual-zone cooking top to be 
tested again for the purpose of determining the represented IAEC value 
of the single-zone cooking top). DOE expects that this approach will 
produce results that are most representative for the tested 
configuration. Further, DOE proposes that if there is no dual-zone non-
portable cooking top within the same product class and with similar 
construction and design features as the single-zone non-portable 
cooking top being tested, then consumers are likely to purchase and 
install the single-zone cooking top for use on its own; in that case, 
the most representative IAEC of the single-zone cooking top is the IAEC 
of that product as measured according to appendix I1.
    DOE requests comment on its proposed tested configuration and 
determination of representative IAEC for single-zone non-portable 
cooking tops.
    DOE additionally proposes that a cooking top basic model is an 
individual cooking top model and does not include any combinations of 
cooking top models that may be installed together. Accordingly, as part 
of DOE's proposal, each individual cooking top model that may be 
installed

[[Page 6838]]

in combination must be rated as a separate basic model, and any 
combination of such cooking top models that are typically installed in 
combination does not itself need to have a separate representation as 
its own basic model. In other words, DOE does not expect combinations 
to be separately represented or certified to the Department as their 
own basic models. This proposal is consistent with the current 
definition of a basic model at 10 CFR 430.2, which specifies that basic 
model includes all units of a given type of covered product (or class 
thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer; having the same primary 
energy source; and, which have essentially identical electrical, 
physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect 
energy consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, or water 
efficiency. Therefore, DOE believes this clarification is helpful to 
provide specific context for cooking tops, but DOE is not proposing 
specific amendments to the basic model definition in this rule.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to not define ``basic model'' 
with respect to cooking products or cooking tops, and on possible 
definitions for ``basic model'' with respect to cooking products or 
cooking tops that could be used if DOE were to determine such a 
definition is necessary.
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.\33\ 80 FR 33030, 33043. 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. 81 FR 60784, 60804. As a result, DOE did not 
consider establishing separate product classes based on the type of 
self-cleaning technology in the December 2020 NOPD. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed previously, DOE is not considering 
separate product classes based on the type of self-cleaning technology.
    DOE welcomes data on the consumer usage patterns of pyrolytic 
versus non-pyrolytic self-cleaning functions in conventional ovens, and 
requests comment on its preliminary determination that self-cleaning 
technologies do not warrant separate product class considerations.
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.\34\ 80 FR 33030, 33043. 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. Id. 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\. Id. 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\. Id. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 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. Id. 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. Id. at 80 FR 33044. 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. Id. 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. Id. 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 [deg]F above its initial temperature, as 
specified in the DOE test procedure in appendix I at the time of the 
testing. Id. at 80 FR 33045. 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

[[Page 6839]]

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. Id. 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. Id.
    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. Id. Further, DOE 
did not identify any unique utility conferred by commercial-style gas 
ovens. For the reasons discussed above, DOE did not propose in the June 
2015 NOPR to establish a separate product class for conventional gas 
ovens with higher burner input rates. Id.
    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. 81 FR 60783, 60805-
60806. While these data demonstrated a difference in energy consumption 
between residential-style and 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. Id. at 60806. 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. Id. 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. Id. 
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.
    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. 81 FR 60783, 
60806. 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. Id. 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. Id. For these reasons, DOE did 
not propose in the September 2016 SNOPR, or in the December 2020 NOPD 
to establish a separate product class for commercial-style ovens. Id. 
at 85 FR 80982, 80998.
    DOE did not receive any comments on the December 2020 NOPD 
regarding commercial-style ovens. Based on DOE's analysis discussed 
previously, DOE is not evaluating a separate product class for 
commercial-style ovens in this SNOPR.
Installation Configuration
    As discussed in section III.C of this document, in the October 2012 
TP Final Rule, DOE amended appendix I to include methods for measuring 
fan-only mode.\35\ 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 kWh/year. 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, 
September 2016 SNOPR, and December 2020 NOPD to include separate 
product classes for freestanding and built-in/slide-in ovens. 80 FR 
33030, 33045; 81 FR 60784, 60806; 85 FR 80982, 80998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 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 December 2020 
NOPD 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 SNOPR.
c. Evaluated Product Classes
    In summary, DOE analyzed the product classes listed in Table IV.1 
for this SNOPR.

 Table IV.1--Product Classes for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Product
  class      Product type      Sub-category        Installation type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1   Electric cooking  Open (coil)
            top.              elements.
       2                     Smooth elements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       3   Gas cooking top.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       4   Electric oven...  Standard with or  Freestanding.
                              without a
                              catalytic line.
       5                                       Built-in/Slide-in.
       6                     Self-clean......  Freestanding.
       7                                       Built-in/Slide-in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       8   Gas oven........  Standard with or  Freestanding.
                              without a
                              catalytic line.
       9                                       Built-in/Slide-in.

[[Page 6840]]

 
      10                     Self-clean......  Freestanding.
      11                                       Built-in/Slide-in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the product classes evaluated in this SNOPR.
2. Technology Options
    In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE 
identified technology options that would be expected to improve the 
efficiency of conventional cooking tops and of conventional ovens. 
Initially, these technologies encompass all those that DOE believes are 
technologically feasible. Chapter 3 of the TSD for this SNOPR includes 
the detailed list and descriptions of all technology options identified 
for consumer conventional cooking products.
    AHAM stated that the available technology options have not changed 
since the April 2009 Final Rule. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4)
    GEA stated there have been no technology improvements impacting 
energy efficiency and no meaningful energy savings opportunity in 
consumer conventional cooking products since the last standards rule 
and therefore there is no justification for changing the current 
standards. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2)
    As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this SNOPR, DOE has 
performed market research and evaluated available consumer conventional 
cooking products to assess existing technology options. Although DOE 
has found that there are no specific new technology options that impact 
energy efficiency available since the April 2009 Final Rule, 
manufacturers are innovating on aspects of cooking performance that do 
not relate to efficiency.
a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops
    In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE received comments from 
AHAM opposing improved contact conductance as a technology option for 
electric open (coil) element cooking tops. AHAM commented that the test 
procedure specifies narrow tolerances on the flatness of the test 
vessel, which AHAM felt were 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. Based on its test data, 
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)
    DOE agreed 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 open (coil) element cooking tops for the 
December 2020 NOPD. 85 FR 80982, 80999.
    In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to consider the technology 
options for conventional electric cooking tops listed in Table IV.2. 
Id. at 85 FR 80999-81000.

   Table IV.2--December 2020 NOPD Technology Options for Conventional
                          Electric Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops:
  1. None.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops:
  1. Halogen elements.
  2. Induction elements.
  3. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the December 2020 NOPD, the CA IOUs requested that 
DOE re-examine its reasoning for no longer considering improved 
electric coils as a technology option in electric open (coil) element 
cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 5) The CA IOUs acknowledged that 
pan warping over time is likely to occur, however the CA IOUs do not 
believe this should preclude DOE from exploring improved electric coils 
as an energy saving option. (Id.) The CA IOUs also expressed doubt that 
energy savings from improving contact conductance is non-existent due 
to pan warping, stating that AHAM's own data confirms that pan warping 
may, in some cases, actually lessen the time it takes for a pot of 
water to reach 200 [deg]F on an electric open (coil) element cooking 
top. (Id. citing AHAM, No. 64 at p. 9)
    DOE agrees that AHAM's data show that pan warping may, in some 
cases, lessen the time it takes for a pot of water to reach 200 [deg]F 
on an electric open (coil) element cooking top; however, AHAM's data 
also demonstrate that in other cases, pan warpage may increase such 
heating time. Given the inconsistent relationship between pan warpage 
and heat-up time, and the lack of information regarding how cookware 
may warp during typical consumer use, manufacturers would be unable to 
determine whether any modification to the flatness of their coil 
heating elements would improve contact conductance. Therefore, DOE 
tentatively concludes that greater flatness of the heating element 
would not result in energy savings for consumers, and maintains its 
decision to not consider improved contact conductance as a technology 
option. DOE is also not aware of any other technology options to 
improve electric open (coil) element cooking tops.
    For electric open (coil) element cooking tops, in this SNOPR, DOE 
did not identify any technology options for improving efficiency.
    DOE seeks comment on any existing technologies that improve the 
efficiency of electric open (coil) element cooking tops.
    For electric smooth element cooking tops, DOE has identified an 
additional technology option: reduced air gap. Typical radiant element 
cooking tops have an air gap between the heating element and the 
ceramic-glass cooking top surface. Energy is expended to heat the air 
between the heating element and the glass, with that heated air 
providing minimal heating to the cooking vessel. One approach for 
increasing the efficiency of a radiant element is to reduce the air gap 
to reduce the amount of wasted heat.
    For electric smooth element cooking tops, in this SNOPR, DOE 
considered the technologies listed in Table IV.3.

 Table IV.3--Technology Options for Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Halogen elements.
2. Induction elements.

[[Page 6841]]

 
3. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
4. Reduced air gap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
    In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to consider the technology 
options for conventional gas cooking tops listed in Table IV.4. 85 FR 
80982, 80999-81000.

 Table IV.4--December 2020 NOPD Technology Options for Conventional Gas
                              Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Radiant gas burners.
2. Catalytic burners.
3. Reduced excess air at burner.
4. Reflective surfaces.
5. Optimized burner and grate design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE did not receive any comments on the December 2020 NOPD 
regarding additional technology options for gas cooking tops.
    For gas cooking tops, in this SNOPR, DOE considered the 
technologies listed in Table IV.5.

    Table IV.5--Technology Options for Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Catalytic burners.
2. Optimized burner and grate design.
3. Radiant gas burners.
4. Reduced excess air at burner.
5. Reflective surfaces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Conventional Ovens
    In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to consider the technology 
options for conventional ovens listed in Table IV.6. 85 FR 80982, 
81003.

Table IV.6--December 2020 NOPD Technology Options for Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bi-radiant oven (electric only).
2. Forced convection.
3. Halogen lamp oven (electric only).
4. Improved and added insulation (standard ovens only).
5. Improved door seals.
6. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
7. No oven-door window.
8. Oven separator (electric only).
9. Optimized burner and cavity design (gas only).
10. Reduced vent rate (electric standard ovens only).
11. Reflective surfaces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on review of the additional test data provided by AHAM and 
GEA in response to the September 2016 SNOPR, in the December 2020 NOPD, 
DOE agreed 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. Id. at 85 FR 81001. As a result, 
DOE did not consider intermittent/interrupted or intermittent pilot 
ignition systems as a technology option in the December 2020 NOPD. Id.
    NEEA recommended that DOE conduct its own testing to verify whether 
or not there is an energy savings opportunity from intermittent pilot 
ignition systems compared to glo-bar ignition systems. (NEEA, No. 88 at 
p. 4)
    NEEA has not provided any data or information to suggest that 
intermittent pilot ignition systems provide any energy savings compared 
to glo-bar ignition systems. DOE continues to agree with AHAM's 
theoretical assertion that replacing the intermittent glo-bar ignition 
system with an intermittent pilot ignition would eliminate the heat 
input that the glo-bar contributes to the cavity and food load, which 
must be offset by additional gas consumption. Because this theory is 
supported by AHAM's test data, DOE continues to consider that 
intermittent pilot ignition systems would not provide energy savings, 
and is not considering them as a technology option in this SNOPR.
    DOE requests information on the potential energy savings associated 
with intermittent pilot ignition systems.
    For gas and electric ovens, in this SNOPR, DOE considered the 
technologies listed in Table IV.7.

 Table IV.7--Technology Options for Conventional Electric and Gas Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bi-radiant oven (electric only).
2. Forced convection.
3. Halogen lamp oven (electric only).
4. Improved and added insulation (standard ovens only).
5. Improved door seals.
6. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
7. No oven-door window.
8. Optimized burner and cavity design (gas only).
9. Oven separator (electric only).
10. Reduced vent rate (electric standard ovens only).
11. Reflective surfaces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 commercially viable, existing 
prototypes will not be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products 
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology 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. If a technology is determined to 
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to 
subgroups of consumers, or 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) Safety of technologies. 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 technology has 
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a 
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the 
potential for monopolistic concerns.
    10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(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 five criteria, 
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering 
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in 
the following sections.
    The following sections also 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 Electric Cooking Tops
    Based on DOE's review of products available on the market and its 
product teardowns, DOE stated in the December 2020 NOPD that it is not 
aware of any cooking tops that incorporate halogen heating elements. 
Id. at 85 FR 81004. Because this technology is currently not being used 
commercially or in working prototypes, DOE stated that it does not 
believe that it would be practicable to

[[Page 6842]]

produce this technology in commercial products on the scale necessary 
to serve the market by the potential compliance date of the proposed 
standards. Id. As a result, DOE screened out halogen elements from 
further analysis in the December 2020 NOPD. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments on the December 2020 NOPD 
regarding the screening analysis for conventional electric cooking 
tops.
    In this SNOPR, DOE maintains its tentative determination from the 
December 2020 NOPD that it would not be practicable to manufacture, 
install and service halogen heating elements for electric smooth 
element cooking tops on the scale necessary to serve the relevant 
market at the time of the effective date of an amended standard, and 
screened out this technology from further consideration.
    In this SNOPR, DOE is additionally screening out a subset of low-
standby-loss electronic controls, namely those that use ``automatic 
power-down'' because this type of low-standby-loss electronic controls 
may negatively impact product utility. In particular, it may result in 
a loss in the utility of the continuous clock display for combined 
cooking products, such as ranges. However, it should be noted that the 
other low-standby-loss electronic controls such as switch-mode power 
supplies (``SMPSs'') were still analyzed in this SNOPR.
    In this SNOPR, DOE is additionally screening out reduced air gap as 
a technology option because DOE is aware that the air gaps in 
commercialized radiant heating elements are currently as small as is 
practicable to manufacture on the scale necessary to serve the cooking 
products market. Furthermore, DOE is not aware of the magnitude of 
potential energy savings from this technology.
    DOE requests comment on the magnitude of potential energy savings 
that could result from the use of a reduced air gap as a technology 
option.
    DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional 
electric cooking tops and whether any additional technology options 
should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in 
this SNOPR.
b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
    For conventional gas cooking tops, in the September 2016 SNOPR and 
the December 2020 NOPD, DOE screened out radiant gas burners, catalytic 
burners, reduced excess air at burner, and reflective surfaces. 81 FR 
60784, 60810-60811; 85 FR 80982, 81003.
    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, 60817. DOE characterized the optimized burner and grate 
design incremental efficiency levels based on different observed 
features (e.g., HIR burners, grate types and material). Id.
    In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE further noted that all gas cooking 
tops on the market, including those with an optimized burner and grate 
design, have been certified to applicable safety standards. 85 FR 
80982, 81004. However, DOE recognized 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 in the December 2020 
NOPD. Id. DOE stated that it would reevaluate the energy savings 
associated with this technology option if it considered performance 
standards in a future rulemaking. Id.
    NEEA recommended that, under an updated test procedure, DOE 
continue to evaluate screened out technologies such as optimized burner 
and grate design, because NEEA believes this technology option has the 
potential to impact efficiency significantly as it affects heat 
transfer from the burner to the pot or pan. (NEEA, No. 88 at pp. 3-4) 
NEEA recommended that, under an updated test procedure, DOE continue to 
evaluate screened out technology options that may improve heat transfer 
between the burner and the cooking vessel like the Turbo Pot product 
which according to NEEA can improve efficiency by 50 to 60 percent 
through a fin design on the pot. (NEEA, No. 88 at p. 4) NEEA recommends 
that, under an updated test procedure, DOE continue to evaluate 
screened out technology options that improve transfer efficiency 
between the burner and the cooking vessel including new burner face 
materials (such as metal mesh, ceramics, and metal foam) and power 
burners instead of atmospheric burners. (NEEA, No. 88 at p. 4)
    The CA IOUs requested that DOE re-examine its reasoning for 
screening out optimized grates and burners, because the CA IOUs believe 
improvements to this technology could ultimately lead to a non-zero 
savings value for gas cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 4) The CA 
IOUs added that if the withdrawn test procedure is adequate to analyze 
the efficiency improvements of grate design, and overall performance 
improvement of other product classes' design features, it should not 
preclude DOE from considering technologically feasible design 
improvements that would improve energy efficiency in gas cooking tops. 
(Id.)
    As discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE is considering 
performance standards for cooking tops, based on new appendix I1. 
Therefore, as discussed in the December 2020 NOPD, DOE is reevaluating 
the energy savings associated with optimized burner and grate design. 
As discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR, DOE testing has 
confirmed that optimizing the burner and grate system can lead to 
reduced energy consumption, as measured under appendix I1. Therefore, 
DOE is no longer screening out optimized burner and grate design from 
its analysis.
    However, DOE is aware of a wide range of optimized burner and grate 
designs on the market, some of which may reduce the consumer utility 
associated with HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates. In this 
SNOPR, DOE is screening out any optimized burner and grate designs that 
would reduce consumer utility by only including in its analysis gas 
cooking tops that include at least one HIR burner and continuous cast-
iron grates.
    In this SNOPR, DOE is continuing to screen out catalytic burners, 
radiant gas burners, reduced excess air at burner, and reflective 
surfaces, for the same reasons as in the December 2020 NOPD.
    DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional gas 
cooking tops and whether any additional technology options should be 
screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in this 
SNOPR.
c. Conventional Ovens
    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 for conventional ovens in the December 
2020 NOPD. 81 FR 60784, 60811; 85 FR 80982, 81004.
    The Joint Commenters stated that DOE's screening analysis was 
inconsistent. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 2) In particular, the 
Joint Commenters noted that technology options like optimized burner 
and grate design for gas cooking tops were screened out due to the lack 
of a test procedure whereas other technology options that rely on a 
test procedure like improved insulation and improved door seals for 
conventional ovens were kept

[[Page 6843]]

in the analysis. (Id.) The Joint Commenters added that new test 
procedures should be established prior to conducting analysis of 
potential standards. (Id.)
    As discussed above, DOE is no longer screening out optimized burner 
and grate design for gas cooking tops, due to the existence of the new 
appendix I1 test procedure.
    DOE agrees with the Joint Commenters and recognizes that the 
estimates for the energy savings associated with improved insulation, 
improved door seals and reduced vent rate may vary depending on the 
test procedure, and thus is screening out these technology options from 
further analysis of gas cooking tops in this SNOPR. DOE will reevaluate 
the energy savings associated with this technology option if it 
considers performance standards in a future rulemaking.
    For the same reasons as discussed above for conventional electric 
cooking tops, DOE is continuing to screen out the use of automatic 
power-down low-standby-loss electronic controls. DOE is aware that the 
use of automatic power-down low-standby-loss electronic controls may 
negatively impact product utility. In particular, the use of automatic 
power-down low-standby-loss electronic controls may result in a loss in 
the utility of the continuous clock display for ovens. However, it 
should be noted that the other low-standby-loss electronic controls 
such as SMPSs were still analyzed.
    Because DOE did not receive any comments opposing the conventional 
oven technology options screened out in the December 2020 NOPD, for the 
same reasons discussed in the December 2020 NOPD, DOE is continuing to 
screen 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 SNOPR. DOE continues to seek 
comment on the technology options screened out in this SNOPR.
    DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional ovens 
and whether any additional technology options should be screened out on 
the basis of any of the screening criteria in this SNOPR.
2. Remaining Technologies
    Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that 
all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 of 
this document met all five screening criteria to be examined further as 
design options in DOE's SNOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen 
out the technology options listed in Table IV.8.

  Table IV.8--Retained Design Options for Consumer Conventional Cooking
                                Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops:
  None.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops:
  1. Induction elements.
  2. Switch-mode power supply.
Gas Cooking Tops:
  1. Optimized burner and grate design.
Conventional Ovens:
  1. Forced convection.
  2. Switch-mode power supply.
  3. Oven separator (electric only).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the retained design options for consumer 
conventional cooking products.
    DOE has initially 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, unique-pathway proprietary 
technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the TSD for 
this SNOPR.

C. Engineering Analysis

    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the 
relationship between the efficiency and cost of consumer 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 
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 ``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 SNOPR, DOE is adopting a design-option approach supported 
by testing, 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. The design-option approach is appropriate 
for consumer conventional cooking products, given the lack of 
certification data to determine the market distribution of existing 
products and to identify efficiency level ``clusters'' that already 
exist on the market. DOE also conducted interviews with manufacturers 
of consumer conventional cooking products following the February 2014 
RFI 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.
    For each product/equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline 
model

[[Page 6844]]

as a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting 
from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The 
baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of 
a product typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). 
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy 
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline 
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
    For each product class for both conventional cooking tops and 
conventional ovens, DOE analyzed several efficiency levels (``ELs''). 
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is 
the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE also 
defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum 
possible efficiency for a given product.
    In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, AHAM commented that the 
manufacturer interviews in the earlier stages of the rulemaking have 
little or no meaning under the current proposed test procedure. (AHAM, 
No. 64 at p. 34-35) AHAM commented that significant changes to DOE's 
analysis have occurred since the manufacturer interviews, including (a) 
the proposed repeal of the oven test procedure;(b) the proposal of an 
entirely different cooking top test procedure; and (c) the entirely 
different approach taken to both cooking top and oven standards. (Id.) 
AHAM commented that the September 2016 SNOPR was an entirely new 
proposal, compared to previous proposals, that was based on a totally 
new test procedure with which manufacturers had very little experience. 
(Id.)
    In the December 2020 NOPD, before the publication of the August 
2022 TP Final Rule, DOE was following the then-current version of the 
Process Rule which indicated that a NOPD would be warranted due to the 
potential energy savings of the economically justified efficiency 
levels being below the mandatory threshold level. Therefore, at the 
time of the December 2020 NOPD, DOE did not conduct supplemental 
manufacturer interviews. Since then, two factors have changed to 
justify DOE's current SNOPR: first the Process Rule has been amended 
and no longer includes a mandatory threshold, and second, the 
publication of the August 2022 TP Final Rule enabled DOE to propose 
performance standards for conventional cooking tops which have higher 
energy saving potentials than the design requirement standards 
considered in the December 2020 NOPD. Accordingly, for this SNOPR, DOE 
sought updated manufacturer feedback through confidential interviews on 
issues relating to potential energy conservation standards for both 
conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens.
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
    The December 2020 NOPD was published prior to the August 2022 TP 
Final Rule establishing appendix I1, which measures the energy 
consumption of conventional cooking tops. In the absence of a test 
procedure, the efficiency levels defined in the December 2020 NOPD were 
based on prescriptive standards. Therefore, the efficiency levels 
defined in the December 2020 NOPD are no longer relevant.
    DOE's test sample for this SNOPR included 14 electric cooking tops, 
the cooking top portion of 8 electric ranges, 13 gas cooking tops, and 
the cooking top portion of 8 gas ranges for a total of 43 consumer 
conventional cooking tops covering all of the product classes 
considered in this analysis. The test unit characteristics and appendix 
I1 test results are available in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
Baseline Efficiency Levels
    For this SNOPR, DOE developed performance-based baseline efficiency 
levels for consumer conventional cooking tops using the measured energy 
consumption of units in the DOE test sample. DOE determined the cooking 
top IAEC for each cooking top in the test sample based on the water 
heating test procedure adopted in the August 2022 TP Final Rule.
    The baseline cooking top efficiency levels for this SNOPR differ 
from those presented in the December 2020 NOPD. As discussed, the 
cooking top efficiency levels for this SNOPR were determined using the 
test procedure finalized in the August 2022 TP Final Rule, whereas the 
analysis published in the December 2020 NOPD was based on the test 
method adopted in the December 2016 TP Final Rule. As part of the 
August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE defined IAEC using an average of 418 
cooking top cycles per year to represent consumer cooking frequency, as 
determined using data from the 2015 RECS. By comparison, the December 
2016 TP Final Rule used values of 207.5 and 214.5 cooking top cycles 
per year for electric and gas cooking tops, respectively, based on the 
2009 RECS. Primarily due to the updated number of cooking top cycles 
per year (along with some other minor changes to the test procedure), 
the baseline IAEC values calculated using the test method finalized in 
the August 2022 TP Final Rule are higher than the baseline IAEC values 
presented in the December 2020 NOPD.
    To establish the new baseline IAEC values for cooking tops, DOE set 
the baseline cooking top integrated annual energy consumption (i.e., 
IAEC) equal to the sum of the maximum cooking top active annual energy 
consumption (i.e., AEC) observed in the dataset for the analyzed 
product class and the maximum combined low-power mode annual energy 
consumption (``ETLP'') observed in the dataset for the 
analyzed product class. This approach is consistent with the design-
option approach used to determine the incremental efficiency levels, as 
discussed further in chapter 5 of TSD for this SNOPR. The consumer 
conventional cooking top baseline efficiency levels for this SNOPR, 
expressed in kWh/year for electric cooking tops and kBtu/year, are 
presented in Table IV.9.

Table IV.9--Consumer Conventional Cooking Top Baseline Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Product class                             IAEC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Cooking Tops--Open (Coil)       199 kWh/year.
 Elements.
Electric Cooking Tops--Smooth Elements.  250 kWh/year.
Gas Cooking Tops.......................  1,775 kBtu/year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops evaluated 
in this SNOPR would replace the current prescriptive standards for gas 
cooking tops which prohibits the use of a constant burning pilot light. 
As such, DOE's proposed standards for gas cooking tops would be only 
performance standards. DOE notes that constant burning pilot lights 
consume approximately 2,000 kBtu/year and even the baseline considered 
efficiency level of 1,775 kBtu per year for gas cooking tops would not 
be achievable by products if they were to incorporate a constant 
burning pilot.
    DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the proposed 
baseline efficiency levels for conventional cooking tops.
Incremental Efficiency Levels
i. Electric Cooking Tops
    For the electric open (coil) element cooking top product class, DOE 
did not identify any design options for reducing IAEC in this SNOPR and 
as a result, DOE did not consider any higher efficiency levels above 
the baseline.
    For electric smooth element cooking tops, as discussed, DOE 
measured the

[[Page 6845]]

AEC and ETLP of each cooking top in its test sample for this 
SNOPR. DOE then reviewed the AEC and ETLP values for the 
electric smooth element cooking tops in its test sample and identified 
three higher efficiency levels that can be achieved without sacrificing 
clock functionality.
    DOE defined EL 1 for electric smooth element cooking tops based on 
the low-standby-loss electronic controls design option. As discussed 
above, DOE defined the baseline efficiency assuming the highest AEC 
would be paired with the highest ETLP observed in its test 
sample. DOE is aware of many methods employed by manufacturers to 
achieve lower ETLP, including by changing from a linear 
power supply to an SMPS, by dimming the control screen's default 
brightness, by allowing the clock functionality to turn off after a 
period of inactivity, and by removing the clock from the cooking top 
altogether. DOE defined EL 1 using the lowest measured ETLP 
among the units in its test sample with clock functionality, paired 
with the baseline AEC, to avoid any potential loss of utility from 
setting a standard based on a unit without clock functionality.
    DOE defined EL 2 for electric smooth element cooking tops using the 
lowest measured AEC (highest efficiency) among radiant cooking tops in 
its sample and the same ETLP as EL 1. DOE notes that, this 
AEC value can also be reached by units using induction technology.
    To determine the highest measured efficiency for electric smooth 
element cooking tops, ``max tech'' or EL 3, DOE calculated the sum of 
the lowest measured AEC in its test sample of electric smooth element 
cooking tops, which represented induction technology, and the same 
ETLP as EL 1.
    DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the proposed 
incremental efficiency levels for electric cooking tops.
ii. Gas Cooking Tops
    In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE considered efficiency levels 
associated with optimized burner and grate design for conventional gas 
cooking tops. 81 FR 60783, 60817. DOE's testing at the time 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 
reviewed the test data for the conventional gas cooking tops in its 
test sample and identified three efficiency levels associated with 
improving the burner and grate design. Id.
    Although DOE's testing showed that there was no statistically 
significant correlation between burner input rate and cooking energy 
consumption of the cooking top, DOE noted that cooking tops that 
incorporate different combinations of burners, including HIR burners 
for larger food loads, have differing capabilities to cook or heat 
different sized food loads. As a result, DOE proposed multiple 
efficiency levels that took into account key burner configurations. Id. 
DOE defined EL 1 in the September 2016 SNOPR 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. Id. DOE 
selected these criteria to maintain the full functionality of cooking 
tops marketed as commercial-style. Id. DOE noted that while there are 
some such products with fewer than six surface units and fewer than 
four HIR burners, DOE did not observe any products marketed as 
residential-style with the burner configuration DOE associated with 
Efficiency Level 1 of the September 2016 SNOPR. Id.
    DOE defined EL 2 in the September 2016 SNOPR 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. Id. 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 defined EL 3 (max-tech) in the September 2016 SNOPR 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. Id. 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.
    In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, AHAM commented that there 
were commercial-style products on the market at that time with up to 
six HIR burners. AHAM's test data indicated that cooking products 
meeting this description were not able to meet DOE's Efficiency Level 1 
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)
    DOE has preliminarily determined, as discussed in section IV.B.1.b 
of this document, that the utility of commercial-style cooking products 
can be met with a single HIR burner. For this SNOPR, DOE considered 
efficiency levels associated with optimized burner and grate design, 
but only insofar as was not screened out. DOE is aware that some 
methods used by gas cooking top manufacturers to achieve lower AEC can 
result in a smaller number of HIR burners.\36\ HIR burners provide 
unique consumer utility and allow consumers to perform high heat 
cooking activities such as searing and stir-frying. DOE is also aware 
that some consumers derive utility from continuous cast-iron grates, 
such as the ability to use heavy pans, or to shift cookware between 
burners without needing to lift them. Because of this, as discussed in 
IV.B.1.b of this document, DOE has defined the ELs for gas cooking tops 
such that all ELs are achievable with continuous cast-iron grates and 
at least one HIR burner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ DOE defines a high-input rate burner as a burner with an 
input rate greater than or equal to 14,000 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's testing showed that energy use was correlated to burner 
design and cooking top configuration (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 reviewed 
the test data for the gas cooking tops in its test sample and 
identified two efficiency levels associated with improving the burner 
and grate design that corresponded to different design criteria. DOE 
defined EL 1 and EL 2 for gas cooking tops using the same 
ETLP as used for the baseline efficiency level.
    DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the proposed 
incremental efficiency levels for gas cooking tops.
iii. Analyzed Efficiency Levels
    As discussed, DOE established efficiency levels for electric smooth 
element cooking tops and for gas cooking tops based on combining an AEC 
value and an ETLP value associated with specific design 
options, noting that different combinations of AEC and ETLP 
could be used to meet the IAEC of a

[[Page 6846]]

given efficiency level. Table IV.10 through Table IV.12 show the 
efficiency levels for each cooking top product class that are evaluated 
in this SNOPR.

 Table IV.10--Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Top Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            IAEC (kWh/
                          Level                                year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................................             199
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table IV.11--Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            IAEC (kWh/
             Level                    Design options           year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................  Baseline...............             250
1..............................  Baseline + Low-Standby-             207
                                  Loss Electronic
                                  Controls.
2..............................  1 + Improved Resistance             189
                                  Heating Elements.
3..............................  1 + Highest Active Mode             179
                                  Efficiency (Induction).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


             Table IV.12--Gas Cooking Top Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            IAEC (kBtu/
             Level                    Design options           year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................  Baseline...............           1,775
1..............................  Baseline + Optimized              1,440
                                  Burner/Improved Grates
                                  (Achievable with 4 or
                                  more HIR burners and
                                  continuous cast-iron
                                  grates).
2..............................  Highest Measured                  1,204
                                  Efficiency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Conventional Ovens
Potential Prescriptive Standards
    As discussed in section III.C of this document, there are no 
current test procedures for conventional ovens. Therefore, in this 
SNOPR, DOE is considering only efficiency levels corresponding to 
prescriptive design requirements as defined by the design options 
developed as part of the screening analysis (see section IV.B of this 
document): forced convection, the use of a switch-mode power supply, 
and an oven separator.
    DOE ordered the design options by ease of implementation. Table 
IV.13 and Table IV.14 define the efficiency levels analyzed in this 
SNOPR for conventional electric and gas ovens, respectively.

        Table IV.13--Conventional Electric Oven Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Level                            Design option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..........................................  Baseline.
1.................................................  Baseline + SMPS.
2.................................................  1 + Forced
                                                     Convection.
3.................................................  2 + Oven Separator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table IV.14--Conventional Gas Oven Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Level                            Design option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..........................................  Baseline.
1.................................................  Baseline + SMPS.
2.................................................  1 + Forced
                                                     Convection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All efficiency levels for conventional gas ovens include the
  current prescriptive requirement prohibiting the use of a constant
  burning pilot light.

    In this SNOPR, DOE is assuming that a baseline conventional oven 
uses a linear power supply, based on DOE's analysis of these products. 
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 AC line voltage down, a voltage rectifier circuit for AC to 
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 transformerless capacitive and/or 
resistive rectification circuits. Within a linear power supply, the 
unregulated

[[Page 6847]]

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.
    For EL 1, DOE is analyzing the use of an SMPS rather than a linear 
power supply. An SMPS can reduce the standby mode energy consumption 
for conventional ovens due to their 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. In this SNOPR, DOE is considering EL 1 to 
correspond to the prescriptive requirement that the conventional oven 
not be equipped with a linear power supply.
    For EL 2, DOE is analyzing the use of forced convection. A forced 
convection oven uses a fan to distribute warm air evenly throughout the 
oven cavity. The use of forced circulation can reduce fuel consumption 
by cooking food more quickly, at lower temperatures, and in larger 
quantities than a natural convection oven of the same size and rating. 
Ovens can use convection heating elements in addition to resistance and 
other types of elements to speed up the cooking process. By using 
different cooking elements where they are most effective, such 
combination ovens can reduce the time and energy consumption required 
to cook food. As described further in chapter 5 of the TSD for this 
SNOPR, DOE performed testing on consumer conventional ovens in support 
of this rulemaking to determine the improvement in cooking efficiency 
associated with forced convection. Included in the DOE test sample were 
four gas ovens and two electric ovens equipped with forced convection. 
DOE compared 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. The relative decrease in active mode energy consumption 
resulting from the use of forced convection in consumer conventional 
ovens ranged from 3.5 to 7.5 percent depending on the product class. In 
this SNOPR, DOE is considering EL 2 to correspond to the prescriptive 
requirement that the conventional oven be equipped with a convection 
fan. This prescriptive requirement would not preclude a non-convection 
mode being offered selectable by the consumer.
    For EL 3, DOE is analyzing the use of an oven separator, for 
electric ovens only.\37\ For loads that do not require the entire oven 
volume, an oven separator can be used to reduce the cavity volume that 
is used for cooking. With less oven volume to heat, the energy used to 
cook an item would be reduced. The oven separator considered here is 
the type that can be easily and quickly installed by the user. The side 
walls of the oven cavity would be fitted with ``slots'' that guide and 
hold the separator into position, and a switch to indicate when the 
separator has been installed. The oven would also require at least two 
separate heating elements to heat the two cavities. Different pairs of 
``slots'' would be spaced throughout the oven cavity so that the user 
could select different positions to place the separator. In this SNOPR, 
DOE is considering EL 3 to correspond to the prescriptive requirement 
that the conventional electric oven be equipped with an oven separator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Oven separators are not used in conventional gas ovens 
because they would interfere with the combustion air flow and 
venting requirements for the separate gas burners on the top and 
bottom of the oven cavity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the definitions of the proposed efficiency 
level for conventional ovens.
Energy Consumption of Baseline Efficiency Level
    As noted in the December 2020 NOPD, DOE's test sample for 
conventional ovens included one gas wall oven, seven gas ranges, five 
electric wall ovens, and two 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. However, as discussed 
previously, in this SNOPR, DOE is considering only efficiency levels 
corresponding to prescriptive design requirements. In order to develop 
estimated energy consumption rates for each efficiency level, in 
support of the Energy Use analysis (see section IV.E of this document), 
DOE based its analyses on the data measured using the now-repealed test 
procedure.
    The integrated annual oven energy consumption (``IEAO'' 
\38\) for each consumer conventional oven in DOE's test sample was 
broken down into its component parts: the energy of active cooking 
mode, EAO (including any self-cleaning operation); fan-only 
mode, for built-in/slide-in ovens as applicable; and combined low-power 
mode, ETLP (including standby mode and off mode).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ In this SNOPR, DOE refers to the integrated annual oven 
energy consumption using the abbreviation IEAO, rather 
than IAEC, as was used in previous documents in this rulemaking. 
This change is being made to emphasize the difference between the 
IAEC values used for conventional cooking tops which were measured 
according to the new appendix I1 and the energy use values used for 
conventional ovens which were measured according to the test 
procedure as finalized in the July 2015 TP Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because oven cooking efficiency and energy consumption depend on 
cavity volume, DOE normalized IEAO to a representative 
cavity volume of 4.3 ft\3\ using the relationship between energy 
consumption and cavity volume discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD for 
this SNOPR to allow for more direct comparison between units in the 
test sample.
    As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE developed energy 
consumption values for the 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 integrated annual energy 
consumption, which included energy use in active mode (including fan-
only mode) and standby mode. 81 FR 60784, 60814. As discussed in the 
September 2016 SNOPR, 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 estimated energy consumption values for 
the baseline efficiency levels for conventional ovens, DOE first 
derived a relationship between energy consumption and cavity volume. 
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. In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE did not 
receive comment on the baseline efficiency levels considered for

[[Page 6848]]

conventional ovens. 85 FR 80982, 81011. Thus, DOE did not modify the 
baseline levels for conventional ovens in the December 2020 NOPD.
    As part of the December 2020 NOPD, DOE evaluated the baseline 
efficiency levels presented in Table IV.15, which also presents the 
energy consumption values for each product class which are based on an 
oven with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft\3\. Id.

   Table IV.15--December 2020 NOPD Proposed Conventional Oven Baseline
                            Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Product class              Sub type               IEAO*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Oven--Standard Oven   Freestanding...  315.2 kWh/year.
 with or without a Catalytic
 Line.
                               Built-in/Slide-  322.3 kWh/year.
                                in.
Electric Oven--Self-Clean      Freestanding...  354.9 kWh/year.
 Oven.
                               Built-in/Slide-  362.0 kWh/year.
                                in.
Gas Oven--Standard Oven with   Freestanding...  2083.1 kBtu/year.
 or without a Catalytic Line.
                               Built-in/Slide-  2093.0 kBtu/year.
                                in.
Gas Oven--Self-Clean Oven....  Freestanding...  1959.6 kBtu/year.
                               Built-in/Slide-  1969.6 kBtu/year.
                                in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* IEAO values are normalized based on a 4.3 ft\3\ volume oven.

    For this SNOPR, DOE expanded its sample size of conventional ovens 
and ranges which were used to determine the baseline ETLP 
value. DOE calculated the baseline ETLP using the highest 
combined low-power mode measured power on a conventional range with a 
linear power supply. DOE also rectified a formula error which was 
incorrectly allocating the number of hours in fan-only mode. These 
small changes resulted in slightly updated estimated energy consumption 
representing the baseline efficiency levels.
    The evaluated baseline efficiency levels for consumer conventional 
ovens are presented in Table IV.16. After receiving manufacturer 
feedback and reviewing products currently on the market, DOE determined 
the energy consumption of the baseline efficiency levels based on an 
oven with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft\3\ to represent the market-average 
cavity volume.

     Table IV.16--Estimated Energy Consumption of Baseline Consumer
                           Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Product class                Sub type              IEAO*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Oven--Standard Oven      Freestanding......  314.7 kWh/year.
 with or without a Catalytic
 Line.
                                  Built-in/Slide-in.  321.2 kWh/year.
Electric Oven--Self-Clean Oven..  Freestanding......  354.4 kWh/year.
                                  Built-in/Slide-in.  360.5 kWh/year.
Gas Oven--Standard Oven with or   Freestanding......  2085 kBtu/year.
 without a Catalytic Line.
                                  Built-in/Slide-in.  2104 kBtu/year.
Gas Oven--Self-Clean Oven.......  Freestanding......  1958 kBtu/year.
                                  Built-in/Slide-in.  1979 kBtu/year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* IEAO values are normalized based on a 4.3 ft\3\ volume oven.

Energy Consumption of Incremental Efficiency Levels
    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. Table IV.17 through Table IV.20 
present the efficiency levels for each product class proposed in the 
September 2016 SNOPR, along with the associated estimated energy 
consumption normalized based on an oven with a cavity volume of 4.3 
ft\3\. In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE did not receive 
comment on the incremental efficiency levels considered for 
conventional ovens. Id. Thus, DOE did not modify the incremental levels 
for conventional ovens in the December 2020 NOPD. 85 FR 80982, 81015.

               Table IV.17--December 2020 NOPD Evaluated Electric Standard Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          IEAO (kWh/year)
                                                                                 -------------------------------
                     Level                                Design option                              Built-in/
                                                                                   Freestanding      slide-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline......................................  Baseline........................           315.2           322.3
1.............................................  Baseline + SMPS.................           306.3           313.3
2.............................................  1 + Reduced Vent Rate...........           291.9           299.0
3.............................................  2 + Improved Insulation.........           278.0           285.0
4.............................................  3 + Improved Door Seals.........           273.2           280.3
5.............................................  4 + Forced Convection...........           261.7           268.7
6.............................................  5 + Oven Separator..............           220.6           227.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 6849]]


              Table IV.18--December 2020 NOPD Evaluated Electric Self-Clean Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          IEAO (kWh/year)
                                                                                 -------------------------------
                     Level                                Design option                              Built-in/
                                                                                   Freestanding      slide-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline......................................  Baseline........................           354.9           362.0
1.............................................  Baseline + SMPS.................           346.0           353.0
2.............................................  1 + Forced Convection...........           327.3           334.3
3.............................................  2 + Oven Separator..............           277.8           284.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  Table IV.19--December 2020 NOPD Evaluated Gas Standard Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         IEAO (kBtu/year)
                                                                                 -------------------------------
                     Level                                Design option                              Built-in/
                                                                                   Freestanding      slide-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline......................................  Baseline........................          2083.1          2093.0
1.............................................  Baseline + SMPS.................          2052.5          2062.4
2.............................................  1 + Improved Insulation.........          1946.4          1955.8
3.............................................  2 + Improved Door Seals.........          1926.6          1935.9
4.............................................  3 + Forced Convection...........          1832.9          1841.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 Table IV.20--December 2020 NOPD Evaluated Gas Self-Clean Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         IEAO (kBtu/year)
                                                                                 -------------------------------
                     Level                                Design option                              Built-in/
                                                                                   Freestanding      slide-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline......................................  Baseline........................          1959.6          1969.6
1.............................................  Baseline + SMPS.................          1929.0          1939.0
2.............................................  1 + Forced Convection...........          1830.5          1839.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE developed the incremental efficiency levels for each design 
option identified as a result of the screening analysis. DOE then 
developed estimated energy consumption values for each efficiency level 
based on test data collected according to the earlier version of the 
oven test procedure established in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. The 
details of the methodology used to estimate the energy consumption of 
each efficiency level for each product class are available in chapter 5 
of the TSD for this SNOPR.
    DOE's testing of freestanding, built-in, and slide-in installation 
configurations for consumer conventional gas and electric ovens 
revealed that built-in and slide-in ovens have a fan that consumes 
energy in fan-only mode, whereas freestanding ovens do not have such a 
fan. For this SNOPR, DOE developed separate energy consumption values 
for each installation configuration.
    Table IV.21 and Table IV.22 show the efficiency levels for each 
consumer conventional oven product class analyzed in this SNOPR. The 
IEAO values for each efficiency level are normalized based 
on an oven cavity volume of 4.3 ft\3\.

                  Table IV.21--Estimated Energy Consumption of Electric Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         IEAO (kBtu/year)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
             Level                Design option                                                     Self-clean
                                                     Standard     Standard built-   Self-clean       built-in/
                                                   freestanding    in/ slide-in    freestanding      slide-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline......................  Baseline........           314.7           321.2           354.4           360.5
1.............................  Baseline + SMPS.           302.0           308.9           341.7           348.1
2.............................  1 + Forced                 289.0           295.9           328.7           335.1
                                 Convection.
3.............................  2 + Oven                   235.3           242.1           275.0           281.4
                                 Separator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 6850]]


                     Table IV.22--Estimated Energy Consumption of Gas Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         IEAO (kBtu/year)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
             Level                Design option                                                     Self-clean
                                                     Standard     Standard built-   Self-clean       built-in/
                                                   freestanding    in/ slide-in    freestanding      slide-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline......................  Baseline........            2085            2104            1958            1979
1.............................  Baseline + SMPS.            2041            2062            1915            1937
2.............................  1 + Forced                  1908            1929            1781            1804
                                 Convection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the estimated 
energy use of each proposed efficiency level for conventional ovens.
Energy Use Versus Cavity Volume
    The energy consumption of the conventional oven efficiency levels 
detailed above are predicated upon 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, energy use 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 IEAO uses a fixed test load size, larger ovens 
with higher thermal mass will have a higher measured IEAO. 
As a result, DOE considered available data to characterize the 
relationship between energy use 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 
IEAO, 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 
IEAO corresponding to a particular volume. 81 FR 60784, 
60821-60822. As part of the analysis for the December 2020 NOPD, DOE 
updated the intercepts in the IEAO versus cavity volume 
relationships for each product class to reflect the revisions to the 
efficiency levels made in that analysis.
    In this SNOPR, DOE further updated the efficiency levels, and 
associated IEAO intercepts. Additional discussion of DOE's 
derivation of the oven IEAO versus cavity volume 
relationship is presented in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
2. Cost Analysis
    The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted 
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost 
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and 
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated 
product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the product on 
the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
     Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically 
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to 
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
     Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a 
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available 
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) 
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
     Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown 
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as 
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which 
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise 
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price 
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online 
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and 
other commercial channels.
    In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using physical and 
catalog teardowns. The resulting bill of materials provides the basis 
for the manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') estimates.
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
    For the December 2020 NOPD, DOE maintained its estimates for the 
incremental MPCs developed for the September 2016 SNOPR, but adjusted 
the cost-efficiency results to reflect updates to parts pricing 
estimates and the most recent PPI data. 85 FR 80982, 81018. DOE also 
updated the cost-efficiency results to reflect the revised efficiency 
levels in that analysis. Id. The estimates for the incremental MPCs 
considered in the December 2020 NOPD are presented in Table IV.23.

       Table IV.23--December 2020 NOPD Conventional Cooking Top Incremental Manufacturing Production Costs
                                                     [2018$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Electric open (coil)   Electric smooth element
                NOPD level                    element cooking tops         cooking tops        Gas cooking tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................................  .......................  .......................  ..................
1.........................................  .......................                    $0.69  ..................
2.........................................  .......................                     1.81  ..................
3.........................................  .......................                   198.33  ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this SNOPR, DOE developed the cost-efficiency results for each 
conventional cooking top product class with incremental efficiency 
levels shown in Table IV.24 and Table IV.25. DOE developed incremental 
MPCs based on manufacturing cost modeling of units in its sample 
featuring the design options.

[[Page 6851]]

    As discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR, DOE evaluated 
two versions of the optimized burner and grate design option, 
representative of a minimum of either 4 or 1 HIR burners. DOE's testing 
showed that decreased energy use could be correlated to burner design 
and cooking top configuration (e.g., grate weight, flame angle, 
distance from burner ports to the cooking surface). Because this design 
option effectively corresponds to a whole burner and grate system re-
design, regardless of the efficiency level achieved by the re-design, 
the incremental costs for EL 1 and for EL 2 for gas cooking tops 
include the cost for redesigning the combination of each burner and 
grate configuration. Therefore, DOE was not able to determine different 
incremental costs for EL 1 and EL 2 for gas cooking tops.

      Table IV.24--Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops Incremental
                      Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Incremental MPC
            Level                  Design option            (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................  Baseline + Low-                     $2.17
                                Standby-Loss
                                Electronic Controls.
2............................  1 + Improved                        11.05
                                Resistance Heating
                                Elements.
3............................  1 + Highest Active                 263.19
                                Mode Efficiency
                                (Induction).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


       Table IV.25--Gas Cooking Tops Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Incremental MPC
            Level                  Design option            (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................  Baseline + Optimized               $12.41
                                Burner/Improved
                                Grates (Achievable
                                with 4 or more HIR
                                burners and
                                continuous cast-iron
                                grates).
2............................  Maximum Measured                    12.41
                                Efficiency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Conventional Ovens
    For the December 2020 NOPD, DOE maintained its estimates for the 
incremental MPCs developed for the September 2016 SNOPR, but adjusted 
the cost-efficiency results to reflect updates to parts pricing 
estimates and the most recent PPI data. 85 FR 80982, 81019. DOE also 
updated the cost-efficiency results to reflect the efficiency levels in 
that analysis. Id. The estimates for the incremental MPCs considered in 
the December 2020 NOPD are presented in Table IV.26.

          Table IV.26--December 2020 NOPD Conventional Oven Incremental Manufacturing Production Costs
                                                     [2018$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Electric ovens                     Gas ovens
                   NOPD level                    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Standard       Self-clean       Standard       Self-clean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................
1...............................................           $0.81           $0.81           $0.81           $0.81
2...............................................            2.73           26.97            6.00           21.35
3...............................................            7.91           58.68            8.40  ..............
4...............................................           10.31  ..............           28.94  ..............
5...............................................           36.48  ..............  ..............  ..............
6...............................................           68.19  ..............  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this SNOPR, DOE developed the cost-efficiency results for each 
conventional oven product class shown in Table IV.27 and Table IV.28. 
DOE developed incremental MPCs based on manufacturing cost modeling of 
units in its sample featuring the design options. DOE notes that the 
estimated incremental MPCs are equivalent for the freestanding and 
built-in/slide-in oven product classes and for the standard and self-
clean oven product classes because none of the considered design 
options would be implemented differently as a function of installation 
configuration or self-clean functionality.

  Table IV.27--Electric Oven Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Incremental MPC
            Level                  Design option            (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................  Baseline + SMPS......               $2.03
2............................  1 + Forced Convection               34.11
3............................  2 + Oven Separator...               67.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 6852]]


     Table IV.28--Gas Oven Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Incremental MPC
            Level                  Design option            (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................  Baseline + SMPS......               $2.17
2............................  1 + Forced Convection               24.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the manufacturer production costs for consumer 
conventional cooking products used in this analysis.
4. Manufacturer Selling Price
    To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit 
margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. 
The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') is the price at 
which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. 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. 
See chapter 12 of the TSD for this SNOPR for additional detail on the 
manufacturer markup.

D. Markups Analysis

    The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer 
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution 
chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the 
engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC 
and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies 
mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit.
    For consumer conventional cooking products, the main parties in the 
distribution chain are (1) the manufacturers of the products; (2) the 
retailers purchasing the products from manufacturers and selling them 
to consumers; and (3) the consumers who purchase the products.
    For retailers, DOE developed separate markups for baseline products 
(baseline markups) and for the incremental cost of more efficient 
products (incremental markups). Incremental markups are coefficients 
that relate the change in the MSP of higher-efficiency models to the 
change in the retailer sales price. 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.\39\ DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census 
Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products 
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the 
same retail markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost 
would result in higher per-unit operating profit for retailers. 
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 for retailers in the 
long run.
    \40\ U.S. Census, 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey (ARTS), 
Electronics and Appliance Stores sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on microeconomic theory, the degree to which firms can pass 
along a cost increase depends on the level of market competition, 
including variables such as the market structure and conditions on both 
the supply and demand sides (e.g., supply and demand elasticity). DOE 
examined industry data from IBISWorld and determined the results 
suggest that the industry groups involved in appliance retail exhibit a 
fair degree of competition even though three firms occupy approximately 
85 percent of the market.\41\ However DOE notes that, consumer demand 
for household appliances is relatively inelastic (i.e., demand is not 
expected to decrease substantially with an increase in the price of 
product). Under relatively competitive markets with elastic demand, it 
may be tenable for retailers to maintain a fixed markup for a short 
period of time after an input price increase, but the market 
competition should eventually force them to readjust their markups to 
reach a medium-term equilibrium in which per-unit profit is relatively 
unchanged before and after standards are implemented. DOE developed the 
incremental markup approach based on the widely accepted economic view 
that firms are not able to sustain a persistently higher dollar margin 
in a competitive market in the medium term. Under competitive market 
conditions, if the price of the product increases under standards, the 
only way to maintain the same dollar margin as before is for the markup 
(and percent gross margin) to decline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ IBISWorld. US Industry Reports (NAICS): 45211--Department 
Stores; 44311--Consumer Electronics Stores; 44411--Home Improvement 
Stores; 42362 TV & Appliance Retailers in the US. 2022. IBISWorld. 
(Last accessed February 1, 2022.) www.ibisworld.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 6 of the TSD for this SNOPR provides details on DOE's 
development of retail markups for consumer conventional cooking 
products DOE requests comment on the markup analysis described above.

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, 
multi-family residences, and to assess the energy savings potential of 
increased consumer conventional 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). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other 
analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings 
and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from 
adoption of amended or new standards.
    In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE used the 2009 California Residential 
Appliance Saturation Survey (``RASS'') and a Florida Solar Energy 
Center (``FSEC'') study to establish representative annual energy use 
values for conventional cooking tops and ovens.
    DOE established a range of energy use from data in the EIA's 2015 
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS 2015'').\42\ RECS 2015 
does not provide the annual energy consumption of cooking tops, but it 
does provide the frequency of cooking top use.\43\ DOE

[[Page 6853]]

was unable to use the frequency of use to calculate the annual energy 
consumption using a bottom-up approach, as data in RECS 2015 did not 
include information about the duration of a cooking event to allow for 
an annual energy use calculation. For the December 2020 NOPD, DOE 
relied on California RASS 2009 and FSEC data to establish the average 
annual energy consumption of a conventional cooking top and a 
conventional oven.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information 
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2015 RECS 
Survey Data (2019). Available at: www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/ 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. Available at: www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/.
    \43\ 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 conventional cooking top and a 
conventional oven, 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 data. DOE then varied the annual 
energy consumption across the RECS households based on their reported 
cooking frequency relative to the weighted-average cooking frequency.
    AHAM stated that consumer cooking behavior is still the most 
significant factor in the energy use of consumer conventional cooking 
products. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4)
    The CA IOUs commented that the COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally 
altered cooking behavior in households across the country. (CA IOUs, 
No. 89 at p. 3) The CA IOUs cited a December 2020 survey of more than 
1,000 demographically and geographically representative participants 
conducted by HUNTER,\44\ in which over 54 percent of responders 
reported that they cooked more at home compared to before the pandemic, 
with 51-71 percent of responders intending to continue cooking at home, 
even after the pandemic is over. (Id.) The CA IOUs also cited a survey 
by International Food Information Council,\45\ in which nearly 60 
percent of responders stated they are cooking at home more as a result 
of the pandemic, and a separate PG&E survey \46\ in which 28 percent of 
responders claiming that cooking had been the most likely factor which 
contributed to increased energy use in their home during the pandemic. 
(Id.) The CA IOUs added that DOE's use of the 2015 RECS to estimate 
operating hours for cooking tops does not account for these changing 
use trends. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ HUNTER: FOOD STUDY 2020 SPECIAL REPORT (America Gets 
Cooking: The Impact of COVID-19 on Americans' Food Habits), 
published in December 2020. Available at www.hunterpr.com/foodstudy_coronavirus/.
    \45\ International Food Information Council. 2020 Food & Health 
Survey. 10 June 2020. Available at www.foodinsight.org/2020-food-and-health-survey/.
    \46\ PG&E administered survey results, November 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE agrees that cooking behavior is a significant factor for 
determining the energy use of consumer conventional cooking products. 
Although, the pandemic has likely introduced changes to consumers 
lifestyle, there is insufficient data at this time to establish a 
definite trend originating from the pandemic. If appropriate data from 
the 2020 RECS are available for the final rule analysis, DOE will 
evaluate the extent to which the data may have been affected by changes 
in cooking usage due to the pandemic. DOE notes that an increase in 
consumer cooking product usage would translate into increased energy 
savings and monetized benefits relative to the reference estimates 
presented in this SNOPR.
    DOE requests comment on data and information on how the pandemic 
has changed consumer cooking behavior and product usage.
    For this SNOPR, DOE updated the datasets used to establish average 
annual energy consumption values for cooking tops and ovens. DOE 
utilized the 2019 California RASS \47\ and 2021 field-metered data from 
the Pecan Street Project \48\ to estimate representative annual energy 
use values for conventional cooking tops and ovens. Pecan Street 
measures circuit-level electricity use at 1-minute resolution from 
volunteer households across multiple states. From the Pecan Street 
data, DOE performed an analysis of 39 households in Texas and 28 
households in New York to derive develop average annual energy 
consumption values for each State. In the absence of similar field-
metered data for other States, DOE weighted the average annual energy 
use results from California (from CA RASS 2019), Texas, and New York by 
the number of households in each State to estimate an average National 
energy use value more representative than any individual State 
measurement. DOE calculated a household-weighted National value using 
the average values from Texas, New York, and California and estimates 
for the number of households in each State from the U.S. Census.\49\ 
DOE retained the methodology used in the NOPD to establish a range in 
energy use values using RECS 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ California Energy Commission, Residential Appliance 
Saturation Survey (RASS) (2019).
    \48\ Pecan Street Dataset. www.pecanstreet.org/category/dataport/ (last accessed June 28, 2022).
    \49\ U.S. Census. data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=households%20by%20state&tid=ACSDT5Y2020.B10063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 7 of the TSD for this SNOPR provides details on DOE's 
energy use analysis for consumer conventional cooking products.

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 is the total consumer expense of an appliance or 
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed 
cost (manufacturer selling price, 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 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 consumer conventional 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 consumer conventional cooking

[[Page 6854]]

products and the appropriate energy 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 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 consumer conventional cooking product 
user samples. For this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is 
implemented in MS Excel together with the Crystal BallTM 
add-on.\50\ The model calculated the LCC for products at each 
efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per simulation run. The 
analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing 
the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the 
no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an 
iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product 
efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen product 
efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard 
level under consideration, the LCC calculation reveals that a consumer 
is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who 
already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the 
potential benefits from increasing product efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Crystal BallTM is commercially available 
software tool to facilitate the creation of these types of models by 
generating probability distributions and summarizing results within 
Excel, available at www.oracle.com/middleware/technologies/crystalball.html (last accessed June 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for consumers of conventional 
cooking products as if each were to purchase a new product in the 
expected year of required compliance with new or amended standards. New 
and amended standards would apply to consumer conventional 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)) At this 
time, DOE estimates publication of a final rule in 2023. Therefore, for 
purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2027 as the first year of compliance 
with any amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products.
    Table IV.29 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The paragraphs 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 SNOPR and its appendices.

 Table IV.29--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
                                    *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Inputs                           Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost.................  Derived by multiplying MPCs by
                                manufacturer and retailer markups and
                                sales tax, as appropriate. Used
                                historical data to derive a price
                                scaling index to project product costs.
Installation Costs...........  Baseline installation cost determined
                                with data from RS Means. Assumed no
                                change with efficiency level.
Annual Energy Use............  The total annual energy use multiplied by
                                the hours per year. Average number of
                                hours based on field data.
                               Variability: Based on the 2015 RECS.
Energy Prices................  Electricity: Based on Edison Electric
                                Institute data for 2021.
                               Natural Gas: Based on EIA's Natural Gas
                                Navigator for 2020.
                               Variability: Regional energy prices by
                                Census Division.
Energy Price Trends..........  Based on AEO2022 price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs.  Assumed no change with efficiency level.
Product Lifetime.............  Average: 16.8 years for electric units
                                and 14.5 years for gas units.
Discount Rates...............  Approach involves identifying all
                                possible debt or asset classes that
                                might be used to purchase the considered
                                appliances, or might be affected
                                indirectly. Primary data source was the
                                Federal Reserve Board's Survey of
                                Consumer Finances.
Compliance Date..............  2027.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources
  mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the
  table or in chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR.

1. Product Cost
    To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs 
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described 
previously (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.
    To project future product prices, DOE examined the electric and gas 
cooking products Producer Price Index (``PPI''). These indices, 
adjusted for inflation, show a declining trend. DOE performed a power-
law fit of historical PPI data and cumulative shipments. For the 
electric cooking products price trend, DOE used the ``Electric 
household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and equipment'' PPI for 
1967-2021.\51\ For the gas cooking product price trend, DOE used the 
``Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and equipment'' 
for 1981-2021.\52\ See chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Electric household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and 
equipment PPI series ID: PCU33522033522011; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
    \52\ Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units, and 
equipment PPI series ID; PCU33522033522013; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Installation Cost
    Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous 
materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE used data from 
the 2021

[[Page 6855]]

RS Means Mechanical Cost Data \53\ on labor requirements to estimate 
installation costs for consumer conventional cooking products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ RS Means Company Inc., RS Means Mechanical Cost Data 
(2021). Available at https://rsmeans.com (last accessed on June 23, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, DOE estimated that installation costs would be the same 
for different efficiency levels. In the case of electric smooth element 
cooking tops, the induction heating at EL 3 requires a change of 
cookware to those that are ferromagnetic to operate the cooking tops in 
addition to an upgrade to existing electrical wiring to accommodate for 
a higher amperage. 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 to estimate this portion of the 
installation cost. See chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR for details 
about this component.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
    For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy consumption 
for a consumer conventional cooking product at different efficiency 
levels using the approach described previously in section IV.E of this 
document.
4. Energy and Gas Prices
    Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the 
incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher 
efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change 
in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE 
applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the product 
purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices 
for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other 
efficiency levels considered.
    DOE derived electricity prices in 2021 using data from the Edison 
Electric Institute (``EEI'') Typical Bills and Average Rates reports. 
Based upon comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, this semi-annual 
report presents typical monthly electric bills and average kilowatt-
hour costs to the customer as charged by investor-owned utilities. For 
the residential sector, DOE calculated electricity prices using the 
methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki (2018).\54\ For the 
commercial sector, DOE calculated electricity prices using the 
methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki (2019).\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential Electricity 
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence 
Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001169. 
ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review.
    \55\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Non-residential 
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. 
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-
2001203. ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE obtained data for calculating regional prices of natural gas 
from the EIA publication, Natural Gas Navigator.56 This 
publication presents monthly volumes of natural gas deliveries and 
average prices by state for residential, commercial, and industrial 
customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration. Natural Gas Navigator 2020. Available at 
www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.php (last accessed November 14, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's methodology allows electricity prices to vary by sector, 
region and season. In the analysis, variability in electricity prices 
is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer economic and 
energy use characteristics are defined in the LCC analysis. For 
consumer conventional cooking products, DOE calculated weighted-average 
values for average and marginal electricity and gas price for the nine 
census divisions. See chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR for details.
    To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2021 
energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes for 
each of the nine census divisions from the Reference case in AEO2022, 
which has an end year of 2050.\57\ To estimate price trends after 2050, 
DOE used constant value calculated from a simple average of the price 
trend between 2046 through 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050. 
Washington, DC. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ (last 
accessed June 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 gas ovens, DOE determined the repair and maintenance costs 
associated with glo-bar ignition systems. DOE estimated the average 
repair cost attributable to glo-bar systems and annualized it over the 
life of the unit at $22.58 based on an analysis of available online 
data found on appliance repair costs.
    DOE seeks feedback and comment on its estimate for repair costs for 
consumer conventional cooking products.
6. Product Lifetime
    Equipment lifetime is the age at which the equipment is retired 
from service. DOE used a variety of sources to establish low, average, 
and high estimates for product lifetime. Additionally, DOE used AHAM's 
input to the December 2020 NOPD on the average useful life by product 
categories, such as electric range, gas range, wall oven, and electric 
cooking top. Utilizing this detail and the market shares of these 
product categories, DOE refined 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.
    DOE requests comment and additional data on its estimates for the 
lifetime distribution.
    See chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR for further details on the 
sources used to develop product lifetimes, as well as the use of 
Weibull distributions.
7. Discount Rates
    In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate 
to households to estimate the present value of future operating cost 
savings. DOE estimated a distribution of discount rates for consumer 
conventional cooking products based on 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.\58\ The LCC analysis 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 analysis, 
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

[[Page 6856]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 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. The implicit discount rate is 
not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of 
factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the 
opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 triennial Survey of Consumer Finances 
\59\ (``SCF'') starting in 1995 and ending in 2019. 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 4.3 
percent. See chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR for further details on 
the development of consumer discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 
Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 
2013, 2016, and 2019. (Last accessed June 28, 2022.) 
www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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) in the compliance year (2027).
    For cooking tops, DOE estimated the current efficiency distribution 
for each product class from the sample of cooking tops used to develop 
the engineering analysis. For ovens, DOE relied on model counts of the 
current market distribution. Given the lack of data on historic 
efficiency trends, DOE assumed that the estimated current distributions 
would apply in 2027.
    While DOE acknowledges that economic factors may play a role when 
consumers decide on what type of conventional cooking product to 
install, assignment of conventional cooking product efficiency for a 
given installation, based solely on economic measures such as life-
cycle cost or simple payback period most likely would not fully and 
accurately reflect actual real-world installations. There are a number 
of market failures discussed in the economics literature that 
illustrate how purchasing decisions with respect to energy efficiency 
are unlikely to be perfectly correlated with energy use, as described 
below. DOE maintains that the method of assignment, which is in part 
random, is a reasonable approach, one that simulates behavior in the 
conventional cooking product market, where market failures result in 
purchasing decisions not being perfectly aligned with economic 
interests, more realistically than relying only on apparent cost-
effectiveness criteria derived from the limited information in RECS. 
DOE further emphasizes that its approach does not assume that all 
purchasers of conventional cooking product make economically irrational 
decisions (i.e., the lack of a correlation is not the same as a 
negative correlation). As part of the random assignment, some homes or 
buildings with more frequent cooking events will be assigned higher 
efficiency conventional cooking products, and some homes or buildings 
with particularly lower cooking events will be assigned baseline units. 
By using this approach, DOE acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in 
the data and minimizes any bias in the analysis by using random 
assignment, as opposed to assuming certain market conditions that are 
unsupported given the available evidence.
    First, consumers are motivated by more than simple financial trade-
offs. There are consumers who are willing to pay a premium for more 
energy-efficient products because they are environmentally 
conscious.\60\ There are also several behavioral factors that can 
influence the purchasing decisions of complicated multi-attribute 
products, such as conventional cooking products. For example, consumers 
(or decision makers in an organization) are highly influenced by choice 
architecture, defined as the framing of the decision, the surrounding 
circumstances of the purchase, the alternatives available, and how 
they're presented for any given choice scenario.\61\ The same consumer 
or decision maker may make different choices depending on the 
characteristics of the decision context (e.g., the timing of the 
purchase), which have nothing to do with the characteristics of the 
alternatives themselves or their prices. Consumers or decision makers 
also face a variety of other behavioral phenomena including loss 
aversion, sensitivity to information salience, and other forms of 
bounded rationality.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Ward, D.O., Clark, C.D., Jensen, K.L., Yen, S.T., & 
Russell, C.S. (2011): ``Factors influencing willingness-to pay for 
the ENERGY STAR[supreg] label,'' Energy Policy, 39(3), 1450-1458. 
(Available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510009171) (Last accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
    \61\ Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., and Balz, J.P. (2014). 
``Choice Architecture'' in The Behavioral Foundations of Public 
Policy, Eldar Shafir (ed).
    \62\ Thaler, R.H., and Bernartzi, S. (2004). ``Save More 
Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics in Increase Employee Savings,'' 
Journal of Political Economy 112(1), S164-S187. See also Klemick, 
H., et al. (2015) ``Heavy-Duty Trucking and the Energy Efficiency 
Paradox: Evidence from Focus Groups and Interviews,'' Transportation 
Research Part A: Policy & Practice, 77, 154-166. (providing evidence 
that loss aversion and other market failures can affect otherwise 
profit-maximizing firms).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first of these market failures--the split-incentive or 
principal-agent problem--is likely to affect conventional cooking 
products more than many other types of appliances. The principal-agent 
problem is a market failure that results when the consumer that 
purchases the equipment does not internalize all of the costs 
associated with operating the equipment. Instead, the user of the 
product, who has no control over the purchase decision, pays the 
operating costs. There is a high likelihood of split incentive problems 
in the case of rental properties where the landlord makes the choice of 
what conventional cooking product to install, whereas the renter is 
responsible for paying energy bills.
    Attari et al.\63\ show that consumers tend to underestimate the 
energy use of large energy-intensive appliances, but overestimate the 
energy use of small appliances. This may affect how consumers evaluate 
and purchase available products on the market. Therefore, it is likely 
that consumers systematically underestimate the energy use associated 
with conventional cooking products, resulting in less cost-effective 
purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Attari, S.Z., M.L. DeKay, C.I. Davidson, and W. Bruine de 
Bruin (2010): ``Public perceptions of energy consumption and 
savings.'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(37), 
16054-16059 (Available at: www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16054) (Last 
accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These market failures affect a sizeable share of the consumer 
population. A study by Houde \64\ indicates that there is a non-
negligible subset of consumers

[[Page 6857]]

that appear to purchase appliances without taking into account their 
energy efficiency and operating costs at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Houde, S. (2018): ``How Consumers Respond to Environmental 
Certification and the Value of Energy Information,'' The RAND 
Journal of Economics, 49 (2), 453-477 (Available at: 
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1756-2171.12231) (Last 
accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment and feedback on its efficiency assignment in 
the LCC analysis.
    The estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case for 
consumer conventional cooking products in 2027 are shown in Table IV.30 
through Table IV.32. See chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR for 
further information on the derivation of the efficiency distributions.

                                          Table IV.30--Cooking Top Market Shares for the No-New Standards Case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Electric open (coil) element cooking tops               Electric smooth element cooking tops                     Gas cooking tops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 IAEC (kWh/   Market share                      IAEC (kWh/   Market share                      IAEC (kBtu/  Market share
        Standard level              year)          (%)        Standard level       year)          (%)        Standard level       year)          (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline......................           199           100  Baseline.........           250            20  Baseline.........         1,775            48
                                ............  ............  1................           207            50  1................         1,440            48
                                ............  ............  2................           189            25  2................         1,204             4
                                ............  ............  3................           179             5  .................  ............  ............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Table IV.31--Conventional Electric Oven Product Market Shares for the No-New Standards Case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Standard ovens                                         Self-clean ovens
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Freestanding              Built-in/slide-in             Freestanding              Built-in/slide-in
            Efficiency level             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           IEAO (kWh/   Market share   IEAO (kWh/   Market share   IEAO (kWh/   Market share   IEAO (kWh/   Market share
                                              year)          (%)          year)          (%)          year)          (%)          year)          (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................         314.7             5         321.2             5         354.4             5         360.5             5
1.......................................         302.0            57         308.9            65         341.7            18         348.1             7
2.......................................         289.0            38         295.9            30         328.7            77         335.1            86
3.......................................         235.3             0         242.1             0         275.0             0         281.4             2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 Table IV.32--Conventional Gas Oven Product Market Shares for the No-New Standards Case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Standard ovens                                         Self-clean ovens
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Freestanding              Built-in/slide-in             Freestanding              Built-in/slide-in
            Efficiency level             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           IEAO (kBtu/  Market share   IEAO (kBtu/  Market share   IEAO (kBtu/  Market share   IEAO (kBtu/  Market share
                                              year)          (%)          year)          (%)          year)          (%)          year)          (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................         2,085             4         2,104             4         1,958             4         1,979             4
1.......................................         2,041            34         2,062            58         1,915             3         1,937            19
2.......................................         1,908            62         1,929            38         1,781            93         1,804            77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment and feedback on its estimate for the no-new-
standards case efficiency distribution.
9. Payback Period Analysis
    The payback period is the amount of time (expressed in years) it 
takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-
efficient products, compared to baseline products, through energy cost 
savings. 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. DOE 
refers to this as a ``simple PBP'' because it does not consider changes 
over time in operating cost savings. The PBP calculation uses the same 
inputs as the LCC analysis when deriving first-year operating costs.
    As noted previously, 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 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 and 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

[[Page 6858]]

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 consumer 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 AEO2022 through 2050. For subsequent years, DOE 
set the annual new housing completions fixed to the 2050 value. The 
market saturation data for new housing was derived 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 
modeled shipments, DOE assumed that every retired unit is not replaced. 
DOE attributed the reason for this non-replacement to building 
demolition occurring over the period 2027-2056. 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 product class 
market shares are kept constant over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Appliance Magazine Market Research. The U.S. Appliance 
Industry: Market Value, Life Expectancy & Replacement Picture 2012.
    \67\ U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review: 2000 to YTD 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in the December 2020 NOPD, DOE did not estimate any fuel 
switching between electric and gas cooking products, as no significant 
switching was observed from historical data between 2003 to 2020. 
However, DOE is aware of recent state and local policies promoting the 
decarbonization of residential buildings which may impact estimates for 
the distribution of shipments between electric and gas cooking products 
in the no-new-standards case. Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act 
(IRA) allocates $4.5 billion in rebates to cover the costs of high-
efficiency electric home upgrades, including rebates targeting electric 
conventional cooking products. DOE understands that these rebates may 
cause the shipments of electric conventional cooking products to 
increase and gas conventional cooking products to decline in the no-
new-standards case, thus impacting economic estimates in standards 
cases.\68\ Ideally, incorporating the impacts of these policies would 
require data on the consumer response rebates covering conventional 
cooking products offered through local policies and the IR A rebates. 
The implementation and consumer response to these policies is still 
nascent and has not yet shown an impact on available shipments data. 
However, other forecasts and data may prove useful in informing an 
analysis that recognizes the likely sizeable impact the IRA will have 
in incentivizing GHG reducing fuel-switching choices among cooking 
product consumers, independent of the standards proposed in this 
action. DOE will continue to explore possible avenues for such analysis 
in anticipation of the final rule. If DOE receives or discovers through 
further exploration, information and data (including its own cooking 
specific modeling as program designs are established under the IRA), 
DOE may consider a sensitivity scenario or other analytic approach 
based on comments received on IRA and other policies promoting 
electrification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ U. S. Department of Energy Press Release Pertaining to the 
Inflation Reduction Act's Direct Consumer Rebates. See https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-state-and-tribe-allocations-home-energy-rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the distribution between electric and gas 
cooking products over the shipments analysis period and the potential 
for fuel switching between electric and gas cooking products. 
Specifically, DOE requests data on existing policy incentives for 
consumers to switch fuels and data that indicates the number of 
consumers switching fuel types between electric and gas cooking 
products.
    DOE considered the impact of standards on product shipments. DOE 
concluded that it is unlikely that the price increase due to the 
proposed 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 SNOPR. 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, and then that unit will be replaced with a new cooking unit.
    The second-hand market for used appliances is a potential 
alternative to consumers purchasing a new unit or repairing a broken 
unit. An increase in the purchases of older, less-efficient second-hand 
units due to a price increase due to a standard could potentially 
decrease projected energy savings. DOE assumed that purchases on the 
second-hand market would not change significantly due to a standard and 
did not include their impact on product shipments.
    DOE requests data on the market size and typical selling price of 
units sold through the second-hand market for cooking products.
    For further details on the shipments analysis, please refer to 
chapter 9 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
    DOE welcomes input on the effect of new and amended standards on 
impacts across products within the same fuel class and equipment type.
    DOE seeks comment on the general approach to its shipments 
methodology.

H. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA assesses the national energy savings (i.e., 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.\69\ (``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. For 
the present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, operating cost 
savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime 
of consumer conventional cooking products sold from 2027 through 2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. 
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 6859]]

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.
    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.
    Table IV.33 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA 
analysis for the SNOPR. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows 
the table. See chapter 10 of the TSD for this SNOPR for further 
details.

   Table IV.33--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Inputs                               Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments....................  Annual shipments from shipments model.
Compliance Date of Standard..  2027.
Efficiency Trends............  No-new-standards case: No efficiency
                                trend.
                               Standards cases: No efficiency trend.
Annual Energy Consumption per  Annual weighted-average values are a
 Unit.                          function of energy use at each TSL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit  Annual weighted-average values are a
                                function of cost at each TSL.
                               Incorporates projection of future product
                                prices based on historical data.
Annual Energy Cost per Unit..  Annual weighted-average values as a
                                function of the annual energy
                                consumption per unit and energy prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost    Annual values do not change with
 per Unit.                      efficiency level.
Energy Price Trends..........  AEO2022 projections (to 2050) and
                                constant value based on average between
                                2046-2050 thereafter.
Energy Site-to-Primary and     A time-series conversion factor based on
 FFC Conversion.                AEO2022.
Discount Rate................  3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year.................  2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Product Efficiency Trends
    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency 
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards 
cases. 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. DOE assumed a static efficiency 
distribution over the shipments analysis period.
    For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to 
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards 
are assumed to become effective (2027). In this scenario, the market 
shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the 
standard under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard 
level, and the market share of products above the standard would remain 
unchanged.
2. National Energy Savings
    The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of 
national energy consumption of the considered products between each 
trial standards case (or 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 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 
AEO2022. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year 
over the timeframe of the analysis.
    Use of higher-efficiency products is sometimes 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 consumer conventional cooking 
products.
    DOE seeks feedback on its assumption of no rebound effect 
associated with the use of more efficient conventional cooking products 
as a result of a standard.
    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 10B of the TSD for this SNOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy 
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009. 
Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/documentation/archive/pdf/0581(2009).pdf (last accessed July 11, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EEI commented that values for full-fuel-cycle energy estimates for 
electricity are extremely overstated,

[[Page 6860]]

especially for consumers in states with renewable portfolio standards. 
(EEI, No. 83 at pp. 61-62) EEI added that the values in the December 
2020 NOPD use outdated information, are more accurate of a national 
average, and are not very representative of what many consumers are 
going to see. (Id.) EEI also noted that other standards are 
increasingly using regional values. (Id.)
    As previously mentioned, DOE converts electricity consumption and 
savings to primary energy using annual conversion factors derived from 
the AEO. Traditionally, EIA has used the fossil fuel equivalency 
approach to report noncombustible renewables' contribution to total 
primary energy, in part because the resulting shares of primary energy 
are closer to the shares of generated electricity.\71\ The fossil fuel 
equivalency approach applies an annualized weighted-average heat rate 
for fossil fuel power plants to the electricity generated (in kWh) from 
noncombustible renewables. EIA recognizes that using captured energy 
(the net energy available for direct consumption after transformation 
of a noncombustible renewable energy into electricity) or incident 
energy (the mechanical, radiation, or thermal energy that is measurable 
as the ``input'' to the device) are possible approaches for converting 
renewable electricity to a common measure of primary energy,\72\ but it 
continues to use the fossil fuel equivalency approach in the AEO and 
other reporting of energy statistics. DOE contends that it is important 
for it to maintain consistency with EIA in DOE's accounting of primary 
energy savings from energy efficiency standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Without adjusting primary energy for fossil fuel 
equivalence, the noncombustible renewable share of total energy 
consumption for utility-scale electricity generation in 2018 would 
have bene 6 percent instead of the 15-percent share under the fossil 
fuel equivalency approach. On a physical units basis, net generation 
from noncombustible renewable energy sources was 16 percent of total 
utility-scale net generation in the same year. www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41013 (last accessed June 28, 2022).
    \72\ See: www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_28.pdf 
(last accessed June 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (energy costs and repair and maintenance 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.
    As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this document, DOE developed 
separate product price trends for electric and gas cooking products 
based on a power-law fit of historical PPI data and cumulative 
shipments. For the electric cooking products price trend, DOE used the 
``Electric household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and 
equipment'' PPI for 1967-2021.\73\ For the gas cooking product price 
trend, DOE used the ``Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking 
units and equipment'' for 1981-2021.\74\ DOE applied the same trends to 
project prices for each product class at each considered efficiency 
level. By 2056, which is the end date of the projection period, the 
average product price is projected to drop 17 percent relative to 2027 
for electric cooking products, and 25 percent for gas cooking products. 
DOE's projection of product prices is described in chapter 8 of the TSD 
for this SNOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Electric household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and 
equipment PPI series ID: PCU33522033522011; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
    \74\ Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units, and 
equipment PPI series ID; PCU33522033522013; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend 
estimates, DOE investigated the impact of different product price 
projections on the consumer NPV for the considered TSLs for consumer 
conventional cooking products. In addition to the default price trend, 
DOE considered two product price sensitivity cases: (1) a high price 
decline case based on a learning rate derived from subset of PPI data 
for the period 1993-2021 for electric cooking products and the period 
1981-2001 for gas cooking products (2) a low price decline case based 
on a learning rate derived from a subset of PPI data from the period of 
1967-1992 for electric cooking products and the period 2002-2021 for 
gas cooking products. The derivation of these price trends and the 
results of these sensitivity cases are described in appendix 10C of the 
TSD for this SNOPR.
    The energy cost savings 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 multiplied the 
average regional energy prices by the projection of annual national-
average residential energy price changes in the Reference case from 
AEO2022, which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after 
2050, DOE used a constant value derived from the average value between 
2046 through 2050. As part of the NIA, DOE also analyzed scenarios that 
used inputs from variants of the AEO2022 Reference case that have lower 
and higher economic growth. Those cases have lower and higher energy 
price trends compared to the Reference case. NIA results based on these 
cases are presented in appendix 10C of the TSD for this SNOPR.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this 
SNOPR, 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 OMB to Federal 
agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.\75\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed 
July 11, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy 
conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on 
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately 
affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a 
subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such 
disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups 
of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular 
consumers from alternative standard levels. For this SNOPR, DOE 
analyzed the impacts of the considered standard levels on two 
subgroups: (1) low-income households and (2) senior-only households. 
The analysis used subsets of the RECS 2015 sample composed of 
households that meet the criteria for the two subgroups. While the RECS 
data offers further disaggregation of these consumer subgroups by owner 
or renter status, DOE only examined the overall positive LCC savings to 
these consumer subgroups and did not further

[[Page 6861]]

disaggregate the data. DOE used the LCC and PBP spreadsheet model to 
estimate the impacts of the considered efficiency levels on these 
subgroups. Chapter 11 in the TSD for this SNOPR describes the consumer 
subgroup analysis.
    DOE requests comment on whether additional consumer subgroups, 
including any disaggregation of the subgroups analyzed in this SNOPR, 
may be disproportionately affected by a new or amended national 
standard and warrant additional analysis in the final rule.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of new and 
amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of consumer 
conventional cooking products and to estimate the potential impacts of 
such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has 
both quantitative and qualitative aspects and includes analyses of 
projected industry cash flows, the INPV, investments in research and 
development (``R&D'') and manufacturing capital, and domestic 
manufacturing employment. Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how 
new and amended energy conservation standards might affect 
manufacturing employment, capacity, and competition, as well as how 
standards contribute to overall regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA 
serves to identify any disproportionate impacts on manufacturer 
subgroups, including small business manufacturers.
    The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the GRIM, an 
industry cash flow model with inputs specific to this rulemaking. The 
key GRIM inputs include data on the industry cost structure, unit 
production costs, product shipments, manufacturer margins, and 
investments in R&D and manufacturing capital required to produce 
compliant products. The key GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is the sum 
of industry annual cash flows over the analysis period, discounted 
using the industry-weighted average cost of capital, and the impact to 
domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses standard accounting 
principles to estimate the impacts of more-stringent energy 
conservation standards on a given industry by comparing changes in INPV 
and domestic manufacturing employment between a no-new-standards case 
and the various standards cases (i.e., TSLs). To capture the 
uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing strategies following new 
and amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible impacts 
under different markup scenarios.
    The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer 
characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such 
factors as a potential standard's impact on manufacturing capacity, 
competition within the industry, the cumulative impact of other DOE and 
non-DOE regulations, and the impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The 
complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
    DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 
1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the consumer conventional 
cooking product manufacturing industry based on the market and 
technology assessment, preliminary manufacturer interviews, and 
publicly available information. This included a top-down analysis of 
consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers that DOE used to 
derive preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g., revenues; 
materials, labor, overhead, and depreciation expenses; selling, 
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''); and R&D expenses). DOE 
also used public sources of information to further calibrate its 
initial characterization of the consumer conventional cooking products 
manufacturing industry, including company filings of form 10-K from the 
SEC,\76\ corporate annual reports, the U.S. Census Bureau's Economic 
Census,\77\ and reports from D&B Hoovers.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Available at www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.
    \77\ Available at www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/data/tables.html.
    \78\ Available at app.avention.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash-flow 
analysis to quantify the potential impacts of new and amended energy 
conservation standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a 
series of annual cash flows starting with the announcement of the 
standard and extending over a 30-year period following the compliance 
date of the standard. These factors include annual expected revenues, 
costs of sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures. 
In general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash 
flow in three distinct ways: (1) creating a need for increased 
investment, (2) raising production costs per unit, and (3) altering 
revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes.
    In addition, during Phase 2, DOE developed interview guides to 
distribute to manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products 
in order to develop other key GRIM inputs, including product and 
capital conversion costs, and to gather additional information on the 
anticipated effects of energy conservation standards on revenues, 
direct employment, capital assets, industry competitiveness, and 
subgroup impacts.
    In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE conducted structured, detailed 
interviews with representative manufacturers. During these interviews, 
DOE discussed engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial 
topics to validate assumptions used in the GRIM and to identify key 
issues or concerns. As part of Phase 3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of 
manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by new and 
amended standards or that may not be accurately represented by the 
average cost assumptions used to develop the industry cash flow 
analysis. Such manufacturer subgroups may include small business 
manufacturers, low-volume manufacturers (``LVMs''), niche players, and/
or manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that largely differs from 
the industry average. DOE identified two manufacturer subgroups for a 
separate impact analysis: commercial-style manufacturers and small 
business manufacturers. The commercial-style manufacturer subgroup is 
discussed in section V.B.2.d of this document. The small business 
subgroup is discussed in section VI.B of this document.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to new 
and amended standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. 
The GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash-flow analysis that 
incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry 
financial information as inputs. The GRIM models changes in costs, 
distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins that 
could result from new and amended energy conservation standards. The 
GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash 
flows, beginning in 2022 (the reference year of the analysis) and 
continuing to 2056. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of 
annual discounted cash flows during this period. For manufacturers of 
consumer conventional cooking

[[Page 6862]]

products, DOE used a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, which was 
derived from industry financials and then modified according to 
feedback received during manufacturer interviews.
    DOE requests comment on the use of 9.1 percent as an appropriate 
real discount rate for consumer conventional cooking product 
manufacturers.
    The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles 
and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each 
standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards 
case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the new 
and amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers. As 
discussed previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using a number 
of sources, including publicly available data, results of the 
engineering analysis, and information gathered from industry 
stakeholders during the course of manufacturer interviews. The GRIM 
results are presented in section V.B.2 of this document. Additional 
details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other financial 
parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    Manufacturing more efficient products is typically more expensive 
than manufacturing baseline products due to the use of more complex 
components, which are typically more costly than baseline components. 
The changes in the MPCs of the covered products can affect the 
revenues, manufacturer margins, and cash flow of the industry.
    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 SNOPR. For this SNOPR 
analysis, DOE used a design-option approach supported by testing, 
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. DOE used these updated MPCs from the engineering 
analysis in this MIA.
b. Shipments Projections
    The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit 
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by 
efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time 
can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the 
GRIM uses the NIA's annual shipment projections derived from the 
shipments analysis from 2022 (the reference year) to 2056 (the end year 
of the analysis period). See chapter 9 of the TSD for this SNOPR for 
additional details.
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    New or amended energy conservation standards could cause 
manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their production 
facilities and product designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level 
of conversion-related expenditures that would be needed to comply with 
each considered efficiency level in each product class. For the MIA, 
DOE classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) 
product conversion costs; and (2) capital conversion costs. Product 
conversion costs are investments in research, development, testing, 
marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product 
designs comply with new and amended energy conservation standards. 
Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and 
equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities 
such that new compliant product designs can be fabricated and 
assembled.
    To evaluate the level of capital conversion costs manufacturers 
would likely incur to comply with new and amended energy conservation 
standards, DOE estimated the capital investments that a major and minor 
consumer conventional cooking product manufacturer would be required to 
make to be able to manufacture compliant products at each efficiency 
levels for each product class. DOE then scaled these cost investment 
estimates by the number of major and minor consumer conventional 
cooking product manufacturers to arrive at the industry conversion cost 
estimates.
    To evaluate the level of product conversion costs manufacturers 
would likely incur to comply with amended energy conservation 
standards, DOE estimated the number of consumer conventional cooking 
product models currently on the market, the efficiency distribution of 
those models on the market, the estimated testing cost to test to the 
DOE test procedure (for cooking tops only), and the estimated per model 
R&D costs to redesign a non-compliant model into a compliant model for 
each analyzed efficiency level.
    DOE used DOE's Compliance Certification Database (``CCD''),\79\ 
California Energy Commission's (``CEC's'') MAEDBS database,\80\ and 
Canada's Natural Resources Canada database \81\ to identify consumer 
conventional cooking product models covered by this rulemaking. DOE 
used the efficiency distribution of the shipments analysis to estimate 
the model efficiency distribution. DOE increased the cost estimates 
from the August 2022 TP Final Rule \82\ based on manufacturer feedback 
and used these higher per unit testing costs to estimate the per model 
testing costs for cooking tops. Lastly, DOE estimated separate per 
model R&D costs for each product class at each efficiency level based 
on manufacturer interviews and inputs from the engineering analysis. 
DOE then combined the per model testing and R&D costs with the number 
of models that would need to be tested and redesigned to estimate the 
industry product conversion costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data. Cooking 
Product-Gas: only contains consumer conventional cooking products 
that use gas as a fuel source.
    \80\ Available at cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx.
    \81\ Available at oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/index.cfm?action=app.welcome-bienvenue. Used to identify any 
electric cooking products not identified in CEC's database, since 
many major consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers sell 
the same consumer conventional cooking products in the US and in 
Canada.
    \82\ 87 FR 51492, 51532-51533.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 new and amended standards. The 
conversion cost figures used in the GRIM can be found in section V.B.2 
of this document. For additional information on the estimated capital 
and product conversion costs, see chapter 12 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
d. Markup Scenarios
    MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, 
materials, and overhead estimated in DOE's MPCs) and all non-production 
costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. To calculate 
the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied manufacturer margins to the MPCs 
estimated in the engineering analysis for each product class and 
efficiency level. Modifying these margins in the standards case yields 
different sets of impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled 
two standards-case scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding the 
potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers 
following the implementation of new and amended energy conservation 
standards: (1) a preservation of gross margin scenario; and (2) a 
preservation of operating profit scenario. These

[[Page 6863]]

scenarios lead to different margins that, when applied to the MPCs, 
result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts on manufacturers.
    Under the preservation of gross margin scenario, DOE applied the 
same ``gross margin percentage'' across all efficiency levels in the 
standards-cases that is used in the no-new-standards case. This 
scenario assumes that manufacturers would be able to maintain the same 
margin of 17 percent, that is used in the no-new-standards case, in all 
standards cases, even as the MPCs increase due to energy conservation 
standards.\83\ This margin is the same margin that was used in the 
December 2020 NOPD. This scenario represents the upper bound to 
industry profitability under new and amended energy conservation 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ The gross margin percentage of 17 percent is based on a 
manufacturer markup of 1.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, DOE modeled a 
situation in which manufacturers are not able to increase per-unit 
operating profit in proportion to increases in MPCs. Under this 
scenario, as the MPCs increase, manufacturers reduce their margins (on 
a percentage basis) to a level that maintains the no-new-standards 
operating profit (in absolute dollars). The implicit assumption behind 
this scenario is that the industry can only maintain its operating 
profit in absolute dollars after compliance with new and amended 
standards. Therefore, operating profit in percentage terms is reduced 
between the no-new-standards case and the analyzed standards cases. DOE 
adjusted the margins in the GRIM at each TSL to yield approximately the 
same earnings before interest and taxes in the standards case in the 
year after the compliance date of the new and amended standards as in 
the no-new-standards case. This scenario represents the lower bound to 
industry profitability under new and amended energy conservation 
standards.
    A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two scenarios 
is presented in section V.B.2.a of this document.

K. Emissions Analysis

    The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first 
component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation 
standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion 
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 
The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on 
emissions of two additional greenhouse gases, CH4 and 
N2O, as well as the reductions to emissions of other gases 
due to ``upstream'' activities in the fuel production chain. These 
upstream activities comprise extraction, processing, and transporting 
fuels to the site of combustion.
    The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO2, 
NOX, SO2, and Hg uses emissions factors intended 
to represent the marginal impacts of the change in electricity 
consumption associated with amended or new standards. The methodology 
is based on results published for the AEO, including a set of side 
cases that implement a variety of efficiency-related policies. The 
methodology is described in appendix 13A in the TSD for this SNOPR. The 
analysis presented in this notice uses projections from AEO2022. Power 
sector emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel 
combustion are estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas 
Inventories published by the Environmental Protection Agency 
(``EPA'').\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The on-site operation of consumer conventional cooking products 
requires combustion of fossil fuels and results in emissions of 
CO2, NOX, SO2, CH4, and 
N2O, where these products are used. Site emissions of these 
gases were estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas 
Inventories and, for NOX and SO2 emissions 
intensity factors from an EPA publication.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. External Combustion 
Sources. In Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42. 
Fifth Edition. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Chapter 
1. Available at www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html (last accessed 
June 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A 2022 study by Stanford University (``Stanford Study''), which 
measured methane emissions in 53 California homes, suggests that gas 
ranges (including the gas cooking top and gas oven portions) contribute 
methane emissions that were estimated to be 0.8 to 1.3 percent of gas 
consumption for active (cooking) mode due to incomplete combustion and 
post-meter leakage during active, standby, and off modes.\86\ Further, 
a significant majority (three-quarters) of these emissions take place 
during standby mode due to leakage. In active mode, the Stanford Study 
noted that such emissions occurred both during steady-state operation 
and during burner ignition/extinction. Gas cooking tops with standing 
pilot lights released on average over 10 times the methane during each 
ignition event than those with electronic spark ignition. Regarding 
standby mode, the Stanford Study found that 48 out of the 53 gas ranges 
measured, along with their associated nearby piping, leaked some 
methane continuously. The Stanford Study estimated that, over a 20-year 
analysis period, the annual methane emissions from all gas-fired 
consumer conventional cooking products in U.S. homes have a climate 
impact comparable to the annual CO2 emissions from 500,000 
automobiles. Additionally, increased methane emissions contribute to 
the formation of surface level ozone which has been linked to negative 
health outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ E.D. Lebel, C.J. Finnegan, Z. Ouyang, and R.B. Jackson, 
``Methane and NOX Emissions from Natural Gas Stoves, 
Cooktops, and Ovens in Residential Homes,'' Environmental Science 
and Technology 2022, Vol. 56, pp. 2529-2539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Studies from the emerging field of indoor air quality have measured 
emissions of additional pollutants associated with gas cooking products 
not quantified in this SNOPR analysis that may potentially contribute 
to negative health impacts, especially in areas with inadequate 
ventilation.87 88 Such in-home emissions may be associated 
with a variety of serious respiratory and cardiovascular conditions and 
other health risks. Reduced in-home gas combustion may deliver 
additional health benefits to consumers and their families by reducing 
exposure to various pollutants. The level of health benefits may also 
depend on the degree to which a household uses or has access to proper 
ventilation. Although the benefits in reductions of these pollutants 
are not quantified in this SNOPR analysis, reductions of on-site 
emissions provide health benefits to sensitive populations such as 
children, elderly, and household members with respiratory 
conditions.\89\ These subgroups are likely to experience more acutely 
health effects that are caused or exacerbated by the on-site emissions. 
DOE acknowledges the potential heath impact of these emissions, but 
notes the uncertainty in quantifying their impact in this emerging area 
of study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ J. Logue, N., Klepeis N, A. Lobscheid A, B. Singer B, 
``Pollutant exposures from natural gas cooking burners: a 
simulation-based assessment for Southern California'' Environ Health 
Perspect, 2014, Vol 122, pp. 43-50.
    \88\ Eric D. Lebel et. al ``Composition, Emissions, and Air 
Quality Impacts of Hazardous Air Pollutants in Unburned Natural Gas 
from Residential Stoves in California'', Environmental Science & 
Technology, October 2022.
    \89\ Seals, D and Krasner A, ``Health Effects from Gas Stove 
Pollution'', Rocky Mountain Institute. 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that the current energy conservation standards for 
consumer conventional cooking products established in the April 2009 
Final Rule prohibit constant burning pilots for all gas cooking 
products (i.e., gas cooking

[[Page 6864]]

products both with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured 
on and after April 9, 2012. 10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)-(2). In this SNOPR, DOE 
analyzed a design option and corresponding efficiency levels for gas 
cooking tops, optimized burner/improved grates, that are associated 
with improvements in combustion characteristics. In general, higher 
efficiency burner systems correlate with more complete combustion and 
thus more efficient conversion of the energy content in the gas to 
thermal energy.
    DOE seeks comment on any health impacts to consumers, environmental 
impacts, or general public health and welfare impacts (including the 
distribution of such impacts across sensitive populations) of its 
proposals in this SNOPR on on-site emissions from gas cooking products 
of methane, carbon dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, or 
other hazardous air emissions. DOE also seeks comment on whether 
manufacturers are instituting design approaches, control strategies, or 
other measures to mitigate methane or other emissions from incomplete 
combustion and leakage.
    FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel 
combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels, 
and ``fugitive'' emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of 
CH4 and CO2, are estimated based on the 
methodology described in chapter 15 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
    The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical 
units per MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. For power sector 
emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by 
sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the 
energy savings calculated in the national impact analysis.
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects 
the AEO, which incorporates the projected impacts of existing air 
quality regulations on emissions. AEO2022 generally represents current 
legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government 
actions, that were in place at the time of preparation of AEO2022, 
including the emissions control programs discussed in the following 
paragraphs.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ For further information, see the Assumptions to AEO2022 
report that sets forth the major assumptions used to generate the 
projections in the Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed June 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units 
(``EGUs'') are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-
trade programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 
cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and 
the District of Columbia (``DC''). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) 
SO2 emissions from numerous States in the eastern half of 
the United States are also limited under the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule (``CSAPR''). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these 
States to reduce certain emissions, including annual SO2 
emissions, and went into effect as of January 1, 2015.\91\ AEO2022 
incorporates implementation of CSAPR, including the update to the CSAPR 
ozone season program emission budgets and target dates issued in 2016. 
81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). Compliance with CSAPR is flexible among 
EGUs and is enforced through the use of tradable emissions allowances. 
Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2 emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the 
adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting 
increases in SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ CSAPR requires states to address annual emissions of 
SO2 and NOX, precursors to the formation of 
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution, in order to 
address the interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (``NAAQS''). CSAPR also requires certain states to address 
the ozone season (May-September) emissions of NOX, a 
precursor to the formation of ozone pollution, in order to address 
the interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 1997 
ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). EPA subsequently issued a 
supplemental rule that included an additional five states in the 
CSAPR ozone season program. 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 
(Supplemental Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, beginning in 2016, SO2 emissions began to fall 
as a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (``MATS'') for 
power plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final rule, EPA 
established a standard for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid 
gas hazardous air pollutants (``HAP''), and also established a standard 
for SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative equivalent 
surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same controls are used to 
reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2 emissions are 
being reduced as a result of the control technologies installed on 
coal-fired power plants to comply with the MATS requirements for acid 
gas. In order to continue operating, coal power plants must have either 
flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems installed. 
Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas emissions, also 
reduce SO2 emissions. Because of the emissions reductions 
under the MATS, it is unlikely that excess SO2 emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand would be needed 
or used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by 
another regulated EGU. Therefore, energy conservation standards that 
decrease electricity generation would generally reduce SO2 
emissions. DOE estimated SO2 emissions reduction using 
emissions factors based on AEO2022.
    CSAPR also established limits on NOX emissions for 
numerous States in the eastern half of the United States. Energy 
conservation standards would have little effect on NOX 
emissions in those States covered by CSAPR emissions limits if excess 
NOX emissions allowances resulting from the lower 
electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases in 
NOX emissions from other EGUs. In such case, NOX 
emissions would remain near the limit even if electricity generation 
goes down. A different case could possibly result, depending on the 
configuration of the power sector in the different regions and the need 
for allowances, such that NOX emissions might not remain at 
the limit in the case of lower electricity demand. In this case, energy 
conservation standards might reduce NOX emissions in covered 
States. Despite this possibility, DOE has chosen to be conservative in 
its analysis and has maintained the assumption that standards will not 
reduce NOX emissions in States covered by CSAPR. Energy 
conservation standards would be expected to reduce NOX 
emissions in the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE used AEO2022 data to 
derive NOX emissions factors for the group of States not 
covered by CSAPR.
    The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not 
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation 
standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE 
estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on 
AEO2022, which incorporates the MATS.

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this proposed rule, for the purpose 
of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, DOE 
considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions 
of CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX, and 
SO2 that are expected to result from each of the TSLs 
considered. In order to make this calculation analogous to the 
calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced 
emissions expected to

[[Page 6865]]

result over the lifetime of products shipped in the projection period 
for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis for the values used for 
monetizing the emissions benefits and presents the values considered in 
this SNOPR.
    On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-
30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay 
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued 
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of 
the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in 
effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that 
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the 
preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from 
``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the 
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were 
issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has 
reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized 
benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. However, DOE 
notes it would reach the same conclusion presented in this proposed 
rulemaking that the proposed standards are economically justified no 
matter what value is ascribed to climate benefits. DOE requests comment 
on how to address the climate benefits and other non-monetized effects 
of the proposal.
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions 
of CO2, CH4, and N2O by using a 
measure of the social cost (``SC'') of each pollutant (e.g., SC-
CO2). These estimates represent the monetary value of the 
net harm to society associated with a marginal increase in emissions of 
these pollutants in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that 
increase. These estimates are intended to include (but are not limited 
to) climate-change-related changes in net agricultural productivity, 
human health, property damages from increased flood risk, disruption of 
energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the 
value of ecosystem services.
    DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate 
benefits as recommended by applicable Executive orders and DOE would 
reach the same conclusion presented in this proposed rulemaking in the 
absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases. That is, the social 
costs of greenhouse gases, whether measured using the February 2021 
interim estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on the 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases or by another means, did not affect the 
rule ultimately proposed by DOE.
    DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO2, 
CH4, and N2O reductions (i.e., SC-GHGs) using the 
estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 
Order 13990, published in February 2021 by the IWG. The SC-GHGs is the 
monetary value of the net harm to society associated with a marginal 
increase in emissions in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that 
increase. In principle, SC-GHGs includes the value of all climate 
change impacts, including (but not limited to) changes in net 
agricultural productivity, human health effects, property damage from 
increased flood risk and natural disasters, disruption of energy 
systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of 
ecosystem services. The SC-GHGs therefore, reflects the societal value 
of reducing emissions of the gas in question by one metric ton. The SC-
GHGs is the theoretically appropriate value to use in conducting 
benefit-cost analyses of policies that affect CO2, 
N2O and CH4 emissions. As a member of the IWG 
involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees 
that the interim SC-GHG estimates represent the most appropriate 
estimate of the SC-GHG until revised estimates have been developed 
reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed science.
    The SC-GHGs estimates presented here were developed over many 
years, using a transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the 
best science available at the time of that process, and with input from 
the public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, that included the DOE and 
other executive branch agencies and offices, was established to ensure 
that agencies were using the best available science and to promote 
consistency in the social cost of carbon (i.e., SC-CO2) 
values used across agencies. The IWG published SC-CO2 
estimates in 2010 that were developed from an ensemble of three widely 
cited integrated assessment models (``IAMs'') that estimate global 
climate damages using highly aggregated representations of climate 
processes and the global economy combined into a single modeling 
framework. The three IAMs were run using a common set of input 
assumptions in each model for future population, economic, and 
CO2 emissions growth, as well as equilibrium climate 
sensitivity--a measure of the globally averaged temperature response to 
increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These estimates 
were updated in 2013 based on new versions of each IAM. In August 2016, 
the IWG published estimates of the social cost of methane (i.e., SC-
CH4) and nitrous oxide (i.e., SC-N2O) using 
methodologies that are consistent with the methodology underlying the 
SC-CO2 estimates. The modeling approach that extends the IWG 
SC-CO2 methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has undergone 
multiple stages of peer review. The SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates were developed by Marten et al.\92\ and 
underwent a standard double-blind peer review process prior to journal 
publication. In 2015, as part of the response to public comments 
received to a 2013 solicitation for comments on the SC-CO2 
estimates, the IWG announced a National Academies of Sciences, 
Engineering, and Medicine review of the SC-CO2 estimates to 
offer advice on how to approach future updates to ensure that the 
estimates continue to reflect the best available science and 
methodologies. In January 2017, the National Academies released their 
final report, ``Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the 
Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide,'' and recommended specific criteria for 
future updates to the SC-CO2 estimates, a modeling framework 
to satisfy the specified criteria, and both near-term updates and 
longer-term research needs pertaining to various components of the 
estimation process (National Academies, 2017).\93\ Shortly thereafter, 
in March 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13783, which 
disbanded the IWG, withdrew the previous TSDs, and directed agencies to 
ensure SC-CO2 estimates used in regulatory analyses are 
consistent with the guidance contained in OMB's Circular A-4, 
``including with respect to the consideration of domestic versus 
international impacts and the consideration of appropriate discount 
rates'' (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). Benefit-cost analyses following 
E.O. 13783 used SC-GHG estimates that attempted to focus on the U.S.-
specific

[[Page 6866]]

share of climate change damages as estimated by the models and were 
calculated using two discount rates recommended by Circular A-4, 3 
percent and 7 percent. All other methodological decisions and model 
versions used in SC-GHG calculations remained the same as those used by 
the IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. Newbold, 
and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and N2O 
mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SC-
CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 2015. 15(2): pp. 272-298.
    \93\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 
Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of 
Carbon Dioxide. 2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, 
which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S. 
Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other 
greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the 
recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked 
with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in Federal 
analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the E.O. 
that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking 
global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in 
February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this 
proposed rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller 
update of the SC-GHG estimates by January 2022 that takes into 
consideration the advice of the National Academies (2017) and other 
recent scientific literature. The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a 
complete discussion of the IWG's initial review conducted under E.O. 
13990. In particular, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used 
under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact of GHG emissions in 
multiple ways.
    First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 
13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the 
welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better 
reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of omitted effects 
from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens, 
assets, and investments located abroad, supply chains, U.S. military 
assets and interests abroad, and tourism, and spillover pathways such 
as economic and political destabilization and global migration that can 
lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and 
humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG 
mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may 
affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international 
mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 
residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and 
residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have 
emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global 
damages of GHG emissions. If the United States does not consider 
impacts on other countries, it is difficult to convince other countries 
to consider the impacts of their emissions on the United States. The 
only way to achieve an efficient allocation of resources for emissions 
reduction on a global basis--and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens--
is for all countries to base their policies on global estimates of 
damages. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the 
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and, 
therefore, in this proposed rule DOE centers attention on a global 
measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as that taken in DOE 
regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A robust estimate of 
climate damages that accrue only to U.S. citizens and residents does 
not currently exist in the literature. As explained in the February 
2021 TSD, existing estimates are both incomplete and an underestimate 
of total damages that accrue to the citizens and residents of the U.S. 
because they do not fully capture the regional interactions and 
spillovers discussed above, nor do they include all of the important 
physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized 
in the climate change literature. As noted in the February 2021 SC-GHG 
TSD, the IWG will continue to review developments in the literature, 
including more robust methodologies for estimating a U.S.-specific SC-
GHG value, and explore ways to better inform the public of the full 
range of carbon impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE will continue to 
follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue.
    Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on 
capital (7 percent under current OMB Circular A-4 guidance) to discount 
the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately 
underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of 
estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National 
Academies (2017) and the economic literature, the IWG continued to 
conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically 
appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context,\94\ and 
recommended that discount rate uncertainty and relevant aspects of 
intergenerational ethical considerations be accounted for in selecting 
future discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Social 
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 
12866. 2010. United States Government. (Last accessed April 15, 
2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf; Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
Carbon. Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013. (Last accessed 
April 15, 2022.) www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technical-update-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact; Interagency Working Group on 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Technical 
Support Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under Executive Order 12866. August 2016. 
(Last accessed January 18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf; Interagency Working 
Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. 
Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application 
of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the 
Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. (Last accessed January 
18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG 
are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of 
OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the 
consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this 
assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature 
pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes that while OMB Circular A-4, 
as published in 2003, recommends using 3- and 7-percent discount rates 
as ``default'' values, Circular A-4 also reminds agencies that 
``different regulations may call for different emphases in the 
analysis, depending on the nature and complexity of the regulatory 
issues and the sensitivity of the benefit and cost estimates to the key 
assumptions.'' On discounting, Circular A-4 recognizes that ``special 
ethical considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across 
generations,'' and Circular A-4 acknowledges that analyses may 
appropriately ``discount future costs and consumption benefits [. . .] 
at a lower rate than for intragenerational analysis.'' In the 2015 
Response to Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG members recognized that 
``Circular A-4 is a living document'' and ``the use of 7 percent is not 
considered appropriate for intergenerational discounting. There is wide 
support for this view in the academic literature, and it is recognized 
in Circular A-4 itself.'' Thus, DOE concludes that a 7 percent discount 
rate is not appropriate to apply to value the social cost of greenhouse 
gases in the analysis presented in this analysis.
    To calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits,

[[Page 6867]]

DOE uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value 
of damages from future GHG emissions, for internal consistency. That 
approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February 
2021 TSD recommends ``to ensure internal consistency--i.e., future 
damages from climate change using the SC-GHG at 2.5 percent should be 
discounted to the base year of the analysis using the same 2.5 percent 
rate.'' DOE has also consulted the National Academies' 2017 
recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates can ``be combined in RIAs 
[regulatory impact analyses] with other cost and benefits estimates 
that may use different discount rates.'' The National Academies 
reviewed ``several options,'' including ``presenting all discount rate 
combinations of other costs and benefits with [SC-GHG] estimates.''
    As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and will continue to 
follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. While 
the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer 
reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it set 
the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by the 
IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely on 
the same models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a range 
of discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the 
IWG has recommended that agencies revert to the same set of four values 
drawn from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount rates as 
were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and subject to 
public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the 
distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios 
(applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values 
recommended for use in benefit-cost analyses: an average value 
resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5 
percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, selected as 
the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3 percent discount rate. 
The fourth value was included to provide information on potentially 
higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change. As explained 
in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and DOE agrees, this update reflects 
the immediate need to have an operational SC-GHG for use in regulatory 
benefit-cost analyses and other applications that was developed using a 
transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and the science 
available at the time of that process. Those estimates were subject to 
public comment in the context of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well 
as in a dedicated public comment period in 2013.
    There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with 
the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic 
understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates 
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 
change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or 
lower.\95\ Second, the IAMs used to produce these interim estimates do 
not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic 
impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature 
and the science underlying their ``damage functions''--i.e., the core 
parts of the IAMs that map global mean temperature changes and other 
physical impacts of climate change into economic (both market and 
nonmarket) damages--lags behind the most recent research. For example, 
limitations include the incomplete treatment of catastrophic and non-
catastrophic impacts in the integrated assessment models, their 
incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, the 
incomplete way in which inter-regional and intersectoral linkages are 
modeled, uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high 
temperatures, and inadequate representation of the relationship between 
the discount rate and uncertainty in economic growth over long time 
horizons. Likewise, the socioeconomic and emissions scenarios used as 
inputs to the models do not reflect new information from the last 
decade of scenario generation or the full range of projections. The 
modeling limitations do not all work in the same direction in terms of 
their influence on the SC-CO2 estimates. However, as 
discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the IWG has recommended that, taken 
together, the limitations suggest that the interim SC-GHG estimates 
used in this SNOPR likely underestimate the damages from GHG emissions. 
DOE concurs with this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 
Order 13990. February. United States Government. Available at: 
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climate-pollution/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's derivations of the SC-GHG values (i.e., SC-CO2, 
SC-N2O, and SC-CH4) used for this SNOPR are 
discussed in the following sections, and the results of DOE's analyses 
estimating the benefits of the reductions in emissions of these GHGs 
are presented in section V.B.6 of this document.
a. Social Cost of Carbon
    The SC-CO2 values used for this SNOPR were based on the 
values presented for the IWG's February 2021 TSD. Table IV.34 shows the 
updated sets of SC-CO2 estimates from the IWG's February 
2021 TSD in 5-year increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual 
values that DOE used is presented in appendix 14A of the TSD for this 
SNOPR. For purposes of capturing the uncertainties involved in 
regulatory impact analysis, DOE has determined it is appropriate 
include all four sets of SC-CO2 values, as recommended by 
the IWG.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses how the 
understanding of discounting approaches suggests that discount rates 
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 
change may be lower than 3 percent.

                    Table IV.34--Annual SC-CO2 Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
                                           [2020$ per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Discount rate
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Year                                                                           3% (95th
                                               5% (average)    3% (average)   2.5% (average)      percentile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020........................................              14              51              76                 152
2025........................................              17              56              83                 169
2030........................................              19              62              89                 187
2035........................................              22              67              96                 206
2040........................................              25              73             103                 225

[[Page 6868]]

 
2045........................................              28              79             110                 242
2050........................................              32              85             116                 260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC-CO2 estimates published by 
EPA, adjusted to 2020$.\97\ These estimates are based on methods, 
assumptions, and parameters identical to the 2020-2050 estimates 
published by the IWG. DOE expects additional climate benefits to accrue 
for any longer-life consumer conventional cooking products after 2070, 
but a lack of available SC-CO2 estimates for emissions years 
beyond 2070 prevents DOE from monetizing these potential benefits in 
this analysis. DOE notes that the SC-CO2 monetization 
results presented in this SNOPR are a conservative estimate and that 
the inclusion of emissions after 2070 would slightly increase estimated 
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty 
Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
Washington, DC, December 2021. Available at: www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-12/420r21028.pdf (last accessed January 13, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for 
each year by the SC-CO2 value for that year in each of the 
four cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2021$ using the implicit price 
deflator for gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of 
Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of the stream of 
monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases 
using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-
CO2 values in each case.
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values used for this 
SNOPR were based on the values developed for the February 2021 TSD. 
Table IV.35 shows the updated sets of SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-year 
increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values used is 
presented in appendix 14A of the TSD for this SNOPR. To capture the 
uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has 
determined it is appropriate to include all four sets of SC-
CH4 and SC-N2O values, as recommended by the IWG. 
DOE derived values after 2050 using the approach described above for 
the SC-CO2.

                                  Table IV.35--Annual SC-CH4 and SC-N2O Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
                                                                 [2020$ per metric ton]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              SC-CH4                                                     SC-N2O
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Discount rate and statistic                                Discount rate and statistic
               Year                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         5%           3%          2.5%          3% (95th            5%           3%          2.5%          3% (95th
                                     (average)    (average)    (average)       percentile)      (average)    (average)    (average)       percentile)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020..............................          670         1500         2000                3900         5800        18000        27000               48000
2025..............................          800         1700         2200                4500         6800        21000        30000               54000
2030..............................          940         2000         2500                5200         7800        23000        33000               60000
2035..............................         1100         2200         2800                6000         9000        25000        36000               67000
2040..............................         1300         2500         3100                6700        10000        28000        39000               74000
2045..............................         1500         2800         3500                7500        12000        30000        42000               81000
2050..............................         1700         3100         3800                8200        13000        33000        45000               88000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O emissions 
reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates for that year in each of the cases. DOE 
adjusted the values to 2021$ using the implicit price deflator for GDP 
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of 
the stream of monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the 
cases using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the 
SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates in each case.
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
    For the SNOPR, DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX 
and SO2 emissions reductions from electricity generation 
using the latest benefit per ton estimates for that sector from the 
EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program.\98\ DOE used EPA's values 
for PM2.5-related benefits associated with NOX 
and SO2 and for ozone-related benefits associated with 
NOX for 2025, 2030, and 2040, calculated with discount rates 
of 3 percent and 7 percent. DOE used linear interpolation to define 
values for the years not given in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years 
beyond 2040 the values are held constant. DOE derived values specific 
to the sector for consumer conventional cooking products using a method 
described in appendix 14B of the TSD for this SNOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors 
from 21 Sectors. Available at www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also estimated the monetized value of NOX and 
SO2 emissions reductions from site use of natural gas in 
consumer conventional cooking products using benefit-per-ton estimates 
from the EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program. Although none of 
the sectors covered by EPA refers

[[Page 6869]]

specifically to residential and commercial buildings, the sector called 
``area sources'' would be a reasonable proxy for residential and 
commercial buildings.\99\ The EPA document provides high and low 
estimates for 2025 and 2030 at 3- and 7-percent discount rates.\100\ 
DOE used the same linear interpolation and extrapolation as it did with 
the values for electricity generation. DOE notes that in-home emissions 
may carry different monetized health risks than the risks assumed in 
the monetized health benefits calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ ``Area sources'' represents all emission sources for which 
states do not have exact (point) locations in their emissions 
inventories. Because exact locations would tend to be associated 
with larger sources, ``area sources'' would be fairly representative 
of small dispersed sources like homes and businesses.
    \100\ ``Area sources'' are a category in the 2018 document from 
EPA, but are not used in the 2021 document cited above. See: 
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-02/documents/sourceapportionmentbpttsd_2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the site emissions reduction (in tons) in each year 
by the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series using 
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as appropriate. DOE will 
continue to evaluate the monetization of avoided NOX 
emissions and will make any appropriate updates for the final rule. 
Additional details on the monetization of NOX and 
SO2 emissions reductions are included in chapter 14 of the 
TSD for this SNOPR.

M. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the 
electric power generation industry that would result from the adoption 
of new or amended energy conservation standards. The utility impact 
analysis estimates the changes in installed electrical capacity and 
generation that would result for each TSL. The analysis is based on 
published output from the NEMS associated with AEO2022. NEMS produces 
the AEO Reference case, as well as a number of side cases that estimate 
the economy-wide impacts of changes to energy supply and demand. For 
the current analysis, impacts are quantified by comparing the levels of 
electricity sector generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption and 
emissions in the AEO2022 Reference case and various side cases. Details 
of the methodology are provided in the appendices to chapters 13 and 15 
of the TSD for this SNOPR.
    The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients 
that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel 
consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a 
unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are 
multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA 
to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or 
amended energy conservation standards.
    In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, the Joint Gas Associations 
commented that DOE should conduct a similar analysis on natural gas 
utilities as it conducted on electric utilities to assess the impact of 
the proposed efficiency requirements on that segment of the energy 
industry. (Joint Gas Associations, No. 68 at pp. 3-4) The Joint Gas 
Associations added that a shift from natural gas cooking products to 
electric cooking products would impact the electric grid requirements. 
(Id.)
    DOE notes that the utility impact analysis as applied to electric 
utilities only estimates the change to capacity and generation as a 
result of a standard, as modeled in NEMS, and there is no gas utility 
analog. DOE further notes that the impact to natural gas utility sales 
is equivalent to the natural gas saved by the proposed standard and 
includes those results in chapter 15 of the TSD for this SNOPR.

N. Employment Impact Analysis

    DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one 
factor in selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts from new or 
amended energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect 
impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of 
employees of manufacturers of the products subject to standards, their 
suppliers, and related service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. 
Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that 
occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by 
the purchase and operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect 
employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or 
eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing 
sector being regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on 
energy, (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility 
industry, (3) increased consumer spending on the products to which the 
new standards apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects 
of those three factors throughout the economy.
    One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for 
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector 
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (``BLS''). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of 
the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in 
different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere 
in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate 
that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs 
(both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of 
the economy.\101\ There are many reasons for these differences, 
including wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more 
capital-intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy 
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility 
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to 
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general 
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a 
less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-
intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, the BLS 
data suggest that net national employment may increase due to shifts in 
economic activity resulting from energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See U.S. Department of Commerce--Bureau of Economic 
Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional 
Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). 1997. U.S. Government 
Printing Office: Washington, DC. Available at apps.bea.gov/scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf (last accessed July 11, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard 
levels considered in this SNOPR using an input/output model of the U.S. 
economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4 
(``ImSET'').\102\ ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S. 
Benchmark National Input-Output'' (``I-O'') model, which was designed 
to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving 
technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model 
having structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among 
187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential 
building energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and R.W. 
Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model 
Description and User Guide. 2015. Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory: Richland, WA. PNNL-24563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting 
model, and that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment 
impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because 
ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects 
predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts

[[Page 6870]]

over the long run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to 
generate results for near-term timeframes (2027), where these 
uncertainties are reduced. For more details on the employment impact 
analysis, see chapter 16 of the TSD for this SNOPR.

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 conventional cooking products. It addresses the TSLs examined 
by DOE, the projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as 
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products, and the standards levels that DOE is proposing to adopt in 
this SNOPR. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained 
in the TSD for this SNOPR supporting this document.

A. Trial Standard Levels

    In general, DOE typically evaluates potential new or amended 
standards for products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency 
levels for each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and 
consider manufacturer cost interactions between the product classes, to 
the extent that there are such interactions, and market cross 
elasticity from consumer purchasing decisions that may change when 
different standard levels are set.
    In the analysis conducted for this SNOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits 
and burdens of three TSLs for consumer conventional cooking products. 
DOE developed TSLs that combine efficiency levels for each analyzed 
product class. 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 SNOPR.
    Table V.1 through Table V.3 present the TSLs and the corresponding 
efficiency levels that DOE has identified for potential amended energy 
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products. TSL 
3 represents the maximum technologically feasible (max-tech) energy 
efficiency for all product classes. TSL 2 represents an intermediate 
TSL. TSL 1 is configured with the minimum efficiency improvement in 
each product class corresponding to electronic controls for electric 
cooking tops, optimized burners for gas cooking tops, and switch mode 
power supplies for ovens.

                                                 Table V.1--Trial Standard Levels for Cooking Top Market
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Electric open (coil) element cooking tops       Electric smooth element            Gas cooking tops
                                           ----------------------------------------------          cooking tops          -------------------------------
           Trial standard level                                                          --------------------------------
                                                         EL                 IAEC (kWh/                      IAEC (kWh/          EL          IAEC (kBtu/
                                                                               year)            EL             year)                           year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................  Baseline....................             199               1             207               1           1,440
2.........................................  Baseline....................             199               1             207               2           1,204
3.........................................  Baseline....................             199               3             179               2           1,204
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                 Table V.2--Trial Standard Levels for Conventional Electric Oven
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Standard electric ovens                                        Self-clean electric ovens
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Freestanding                  Built-in/slide-in                 Freestanding                  Built-in/slide-in
                      Trial standard level                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    IEAO (kWh/                      IEAO (kWh/                      IEAO (kWh/                      IEAO (kWh/
                                                                        EL             year)            EL             year)            EL             year)            EL             year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................               1           302.0               1           308.9               1           341.7               1           348.1
2...............................................................               1           302.0               1           308.9               1           341.7               1           348.1
3...............................................................               3           235.3               3           242.1               3           275.0               3           281.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                   Table V.3--Trial Standard Levels for Conventional Gas Oven
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Standard gas ovens                                             Self-clean gas ovens
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Freestanding                  Built-in/slide-in                 Freestanding                  Built-in/slide-in
                      Trial standard level                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    IEAO (kBtu/                     IEAO (kBtu/                     IEAO (kBtu/                     IEAO (kBtu/
                                                                        EL             year)            EL             year)            EL             year)            EL             year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................               1           2,041               1           2,062               1           1,915               1           1,937
2...............................................................               1           2,041               1           2,062               1           1,915               1           1,937
3...............................................................               2           1,908               2           1,929               2           1,781               2           1,804
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE constructed the TSLs for this SNOPR to include ELs 
representative of ELs with similar characteristics (i.e., using similar 
technologies and/or efficiencies, and having roughly comparable 
equipment availability). The use of representative ELs provided for 
greater distinction between the TSLs. While representative ELs were 
included in the TSLs, DOE considered all efficiency levels as part of 
its analysis.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this SNOPR are 
discussed in section IV.C of this document. Results by efficiency 
level are presented in chapters 8, 10, and 12 of the TSD for this 
SNOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 6871]]

the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards 
on selected consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed in the 
following sections.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two 
ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs 
decrease. 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 SNOPR provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
    Table V.4 through Table V.25 show the LCC and PBP results for the 
TSLs considered for each product class. In the first of each pair of 
tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline 
product. In the second table, impacts are measured relative to the 
efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in the compliance 
year (see section IV.F.8 of this document). 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.

                                  Table V.4--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Average costs (2021$)
                                                                           ----------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            First                                  Simple      Average
                    TSL                            Efficiency  level         Installed      year's      Lifetime                  payback      lifetime
                                                                                cost      operating    operating       LCC        (years)      (years)
                                                                                             cost         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-3.......................................  Baseline......................         $327          $14         $334         $661  ...........         16.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level.


  Table V.5--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking
                                                      Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Life-cycle cost savings
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
               TSL                   Efficiency level     Average LCC savings *      Percent of consumers that
                                                                 (2021$)                experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-3..............................  Baseline...........                     $0.00                              0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                     Table V.6--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Average costs (2021$)
                                                                           ----------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            First                                  Simple      Average
                    TSL                            Efficiency level          Installed      year's      Lifetime                  payback      lifetime
                                                                                cost      operating    operating       LCC        (years)      (years)
                                                                                             cost         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Baseline......................         $552          $20         $408         $960  ...........         16.8
1, 2......................................  1.............................          555           14          336          891          0.6         16.8
                                            2.............................          568           13          321          890          2.5         16.8
3.........................................  3.............................        1,204           12          314        1,517         87.5         16.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


  Table V.7--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Life-cycle cost savings
                                            Efficiency   -------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                         level        Average LCC savings *     Percent of consumers that
                                                                   (2021$)               experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2....................................               1                    $13.29                             0
3.......................................               3                  (580.31)                            95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


[[Page 6872]]


                                               Table V.8--Average LCC and PBP Results for Gas Cooking Tops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Average costs (2021$)
                                                                           ----------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            First                                  Simple      Average
                    TSL                            Efficiency level          Installed      year's      Lifetime                  payback      lifetime
                                                                                cost      operating    operating       LCC        (years)      (years)
                                                                                             cost         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Baseline......................         $376          $16         $337         $713  ...........         14.5
1.........................................  1.............................          395           13          310          705          8.4         14.5
2, 3......................................  2.............................          395           12          292          686          5.0         14.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


            Table V.9--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Gas Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Life-cycle cost savings
                                            Efficiency   -------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                         level        Average LCC savings *     Percent of consumers that
                                                                   (2021$)               experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................               1                     $3.88                            27
2, 3....................................               2                     21.89                            18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                    Table V.10--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Average costs (2021$)
                                                                           ----------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            First                                  Simple      Average
                    TSL                            Efficiency level          Installed      year's      Lifetime                  payback      lifetime
                                                                                cost      operating    operating       LCC        (years)      (years)
                                                                                             cost         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Baseline......................         $652          $23         $482       $1,134  ...........         16.8
1, 2......................................  1.............................          655           21          459        1,114          1.7         16.8
                                            2.............................          704           20          448        1,152         19.8         16.8
3.........................................  3.............................          755           17          405        1,160         17.0         16.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


 Table V.11--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Life-cycle cost savings
                                            Efficiency   -------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                         level        Average LCC savings *     Percent of consumers that
                                                                   (2021$)               experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2....................................               1                     $0.99                             0
3.......................................               3                   (29.92)                            80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


                                 Table V.12--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Average costs (2021$)
                                                                           ----------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            First                                  Simple      Average
                    TSL                            Efficiency level          Installed      year's      Lifetime                  payback      lifetime
                                                                                cost      operating    operating       LCC        (years)      (years)
                                                                                             cost         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Baseline......................         $682          $24         $494       $1,176  ...........         16.8
1, 2......................................  1.............................          685           22          472        1,157          1.8         16.8
                                            2.............................          734           21          461        1,195         20.2         16.8
3.........................................  3.............................          785           18          417        1,203         17.2         16.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


[[Page 6873]]


  Table V.13--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/
                                                    Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Life-cycle cost savings
                                            Efficiency   -------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                         level        Average LCC savings *     Percent of consumers that
                                                                   (2021$)               experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2....................................               1                     $0.95                             0
3.......................................               3                   (33.05)                            81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


                                   Table V.14--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Average costs (2021$)
                                                                           ----------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            First                                  Simple      Average
                    TSL                            Efficiency level          Installed      year's      Lifetime                  payback      lifetime
                                                                                cost      operating    operating       LCC        (years)      (years)
                                                                                             cost         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Baseline......................         $699          $28         $552       $1,251  ...........         16.8
1, 2......................................  1.............................          702           26          529        1,231          1.7         16.8
                                            2.............................          751           26          518        1,269         19.8         16.8
3.........................................  3.............................          802           22          474        1,277         17.0         16.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


      Table V.15--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Electric Self-Clean Ovens,
                                                  Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Life-cycle cost savings
                                            Efficiency   -------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                         level        Average LCC savings *     Percent of consumers that
                                                                   (2021$)               experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2....................................               1                     $1.02                             0
3.......................................               3                   (15.31)                            75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


                                Table V.16--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Average costs (2021$)
                                                                           ----------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            First                                  Simple      Average
                    TSL                            Efficiency level          Installed      year's      Lifetime                  payback      lifetime
                                                                                cost      operating    operating       LCC        (years)      (years)
                                                                                             cost         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Baseline......................         $729          $29         $563       $1,292  ...........         16.8
1, 2......................................  1.............................          732           27          540        1,273          1.8         16.8
                                            2.............................          781           27          530        1,311         20.1         16.8
3.........................................  3.............................          832           23          486        1,319         17.2         16.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


 Table V.17--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/
                                                    Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Life-cycle cost savings
                                            Efficiency   -------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                         level        Average LCC savings *     Percent of consumers that
                                                                   (2021$)               experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2....................................               1                     $1.01                             0
3.......................................               3                   (10.84)                            72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


[[Page 6874]]


                                      Table V.18--Average LCC and PBP Results for Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Average costs (2021$)
                                                                           ----------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            First                                  Simple      Average
                    TSL                            Efficiency level          Installed      year's      Lifetime                  payback      lifetime
                                                                                cost      operating    operating       LCC        (years)      (years)
                                                                                             cost         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Baseline......................         $677          $43         $684       $1,361  ...........         14.5
1, 2......................................  1.............................          681           41          664        1,345          1.9         14.5
3.........................................  2.............................          715           40          653        1,367         14.1         14.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


   Table V.19--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Life-cycle cost savings
                                            Efficiency   -------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                         level        Average LCC savings *     Percent of consumers that
                                                                   (2021$)               experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2....................................               1                     $0.65                             1
3.......................................               2                    (7.56)                            33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


                                    Table V.20--Average LCC and PBP Results for Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Average costs (2021$)
                                                                        -------------------------------------------------------    Simple      Average
                   TSL                           Efficiency level                                       Lifetime                  payback      lifetime
                                                                          Installed    First year's    operating       LCC        (years)      (years)
                                                                             cost     operating cost      cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Baseline....................         $707             $44         $692       $1,399  ...........         14.5
1, 2.....................................  1...........................          710              42          673        1,384          2.0         14.5
3........................................  2...........................          744              41          662        1,406         14.4         14.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


 Table V.21--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Life-cycle cost savings
                                            Efficiency   -------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                         level        Average LCC savings *     Percent of consumers that
                                                                   (2021$)               experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2....................................               1                     $0.59                             1
3.......................................               2                   (13.37)                            56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


                                     Table V.22--Average LCC and PBP Results for Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Average costs (2021$)
                                                                        -------------------------------------------------------    Simple      Average
                   TSL                           Efficiency level                                       Lifetime                  payback      lifetime
                                                                          Installed    First year's    operating       LCC        (years)      (years)
                                                                             cost     operating cost      cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Baseline....................         $847             $44         $702       $1,549  ...........         14.5
1, 2.....................................  1...........................          850              43          683        1,532          1.9         14.5
3........................................  2...........................          884              42          671        1,555         14.1         14.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


[[Page 6875]]


  Table V.23--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Life-cycle cost savings
                                            Efficiency   -------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                         level        Average LCC savings *     Percent of consumers that
                                                                   (2021$)               experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2....................................               1                     $0.70                             1
3.......................................               2                    (0.86)                             6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


                                   Table V.24--Average LCC and PBP Results for Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Average costs (2021$)
                                          ------------------------------------------------------------------------                 Simple      Average
                   TSL                                                                                  Lifetime       LCC        payback      lifetime
                                                 Efficiency level         Installed    First year's    operating                  (years)      (years)
                                                                             cost     operating cost      cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Baseline....................         $876             $45         $711       $1,587  ...........         14.5
1, 2.....................................  1...........................          879              44          692        1,571          2.0         14.5
3........................................  2...........................          913              43          680        1,594         14.4         14.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline product.


 Table V.25--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-
                                                       In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Life-cycle cost savings
                                            Efficiency   -------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                         level        Average LCC savings *     Percent of consumers that
                                                                   (2021$)               experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2....................................               1                     $0.60                             1
3.......................................               2                    (4.52)                            20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the 
considered TSLs on low-income households and senior-only households. 
Table V.26 through Table V.36 compare the average LCC savings and PBP 
at each efficiency level for the consumer subgroups with similar 
metrics for the entire consumer sample for each product class. In most 
cases, the average LCC savings and PBP for low-income households and 
senior-only households at the considered efficiency levels are not 
substantially different from the average for all households. Usage data 
from RECS 2015 indicate that low-income households have a similar usage 
pattern to all households which leads to similar results. Senior-only 
households were found to use cooking products less frequently than the 
general population resulting in slightly lower savings. Chapter 11 of 
the TSD for this SNOPR presents the complete LCC and PBP results for 
the subgroups.

  Table V.26--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Electric Open (Coil)
                                              Element Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Low-income      Senior-only
                                                                    households      households    All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$) *
    TSL 1-3.....................................................           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00
Payback Period (years)
    TSL 1-3.....................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
    TSL 1-3.....................................................              0%              0%              0%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
    TSL 1-3.....................................................              0%              0%              0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


[[Page 6876]]


Table V.27--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Electric Smooth Element
                                                  Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Low-income      Senior-only
                                                                    households      households    All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................          $13.71          $13.30          $13.29
    TSL 3.......................................................       ($556.90)       ($580.13)       ($580.31)
Payback Period (years)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................             0.5             0.6             0.6
    TSL 3.......................................................            82.4            86.6            87.5
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................             20%             19%             19%
    TSL 3.......................................................              1%              0%              0%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              0%              0%              0%
    TSL 3.......................................................             94%             95%             95%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


    Table V.28--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Gas Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Low-income      Senior-only
                                                                    households      households    All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
    TSL 1.......................................................           $3.56           $3.65           $3.88
    TSL 2, 3....................................................          $21.06          $21.37          $21.89
Payback Period (years)
    TSL 1.......................................................             8.5             8.6             8.4
    TSL 2, 3....................................................             5.0             5.0             5.0
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
    TSL 1.......................................................             21%             19%             21%
    TSL 2, 3....................................................             76%             76%             75%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
    TSL 1.......................................................             28%             29%             27%
    TSL 2, 3....................................................             18%             19%             18%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


   Table V.29--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Electric Standard
                                               Ovens, Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Low-income      Senior-only
                                                                    households      households    All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................           $1.00           $0.95           $0.99
    TSL 3.......................................................        ($29.95)        ($40.40)        ($29.92)
Payback Period (years)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................             1.7             1.8             1.7
    TSL 3.......................................................            17.1            20.4            17.0
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              5%              5%              5%
    TSL 3.......................................................             21%             14%             21%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              0%              0%              0%
    TSL 3.......................................................             79%             86%             80%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


   Table V.30--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Electric Standard
                                            Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Low-income      Senior-only
                                                                    households      households    All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................           $0.95           $0.86           $0.95
    TSL 3.......................................................        ($32.96)        ($43.69)        ($33.05)
Payback Period (years)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................             1.8             1.9             1.8
    TSL 3.......................................................            17.3            20.6            17.2
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)

[[Page 6877]]

 
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              5%              5%              5%
    TSL 3.......................................................             20%             13%             20%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              0%              0%              0%
    TSL 3.......................................................             80%             87%             81%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


  Table V.31--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Electric Self-Clean
                                               Ovens, Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Low-income      Senior-only
                                                                    households      households    All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................           $1.07           $0.99           $1.02
    TSL 3.......................................................        ($15.42)        ($24.72)        ($15.31)
Payback Period (years)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................             1.7             1.8             1.7
    TSL 3.......................................................            17.1            20.4            17.0
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              5%              5%              5%
    TSL 3.......................................................             25%             18%             25%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              0%              0%              0%
    TSL 3.......................................................             75%             82%             75%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


  Table V.32--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Electric Self-Clean
                                            Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Low-income      Senior-only
                                                                    households      households    All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................           $0.96           $0.90           $1.01
    TSL 3.......................................................        ($10.89)        ($20.02)        ($10.84)
Payback Period (years)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................             1.8             1.9             1.8
    TSL 3.......................................................            17.3            20.6            17.2
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              5%              5%              5%
    TSL 3.......................................................             26%             19%             26%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              0%              0%              0%
    TSL 3.......................................................             72%             79%             72%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


  Table V.33--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Gas Standard Ovens,
                                                  Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Low-income      Senior-only
                                                                    households      households    All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................           $0.72           $0.56           $0.65
    TSL 3.......................................................         ($6.77)         ($8.51)         ($7.56)
Payback Period (years)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................             1.7             2.1             1.9
    TSL 3.......................................................            12.0            15.7            14.1
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              3%              3%              3%
    TSL 3.......................................................              4%              3%              4%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              1%              1%              1%
    TSL 3.......................................................             34%             34%             33%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


[[Page 6878]]


  Table V.34--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Gas Standard Ovens,
                                                Built-In/Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Low-income      Senior-only
                                                                    households      households    All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................           $0.74           $0.58           $0.59
    TSL 3.......................................................        ($11.63)        ($14.33)        ($13.37)
Payback Period (years)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................             1.7             2.2             2.0
    TSL 3.......................................................            12.3            16.0            14.4
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              4%              3%              3%
    TSL 3.......................................................              6%              5%              6%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              1%              1%              1%
    TSL 3.......................................................             56%             57%             56%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


 Table V.35--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Gas Self-Clean Ovens,
                                                  Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Low-income      Senior-only
                                                                    households      households    All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................           $0.90           $0.64           $0.70
    TSL 3.......................................................         ($0.60)         ($1.12)         ($0.86)
Payback Period (years)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................             1.7             2.1             1.9
    TSL 3.......................................................            12.1            15.7            14.1
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              4%              4%              4%
    TSL 3.......................................................              2%              1%              1%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              0%              1%              1%
    TSL 3.......................................................              5%              6%              6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.


 Table V.36--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Gas Self-Clean Ovens,
                                                Built-In/Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Low-income      Senior-only
                                                                    households      households    All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................           $0.67           $0.50           $0.60
    TSL 3.......................................................         ($3.58)         ($4.92)         ($4.52)
Payback Period (years)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................             1.7             2.2             2.0
    TSL 3.......................................................            12.3            16.0            14.4
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              3%              3%              3%
    TSL 3.......................................................              3%              2%              3%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
    TSL 1, 2....................................................              1%              1%              1%
    TSL 3.......................................................             20%             21%             20%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.

    In the absence to data specific to each consumer subgroup, DOE 
assumed the efficiency distribution developed for the reference case 
analysis (see section IV.F.8 of this document for details). However, 
for gas cooking tops, this likely overestimates the negative impact to 
low-income households that are more likely to purchase traditional 
residential-style gas cooking tops which tend to have fewer high output 
burners and slimmer grates relative to commercial-style gas cooking 
tops. These households are more likely to purchase products above the 
baseline at EL 1 or EL 2. As both EL 1 and EL 2 have the same installed 
cost (see Table V.5), a standard for these consumers would not lead to 
an increase in purchase price and would result in operating cost 
savings for consumers that purchase EL 1 in the no-new-standards case 
and EL 2 in a standards case.
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    As discussed in section III.F.2 of this document, EPCA establishes 
a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically

[[Page 6879]]

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. In calculating a rebuttable 
presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs, DOE used 
discrete values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use 
calculation on the DOE test procedure 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.
    Table V.37 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for 
the considered TSLs for consumer conventional cooking products. While 
DOE examined the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it considered 
whether the standard levels considered for the SNOPR are economically 
justified through a more detailed analysis of the economic impacts of 
those levels, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers 
the full range of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and 
environment. The results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 
definitively evaluate the economic justification for a potential 
standard level, thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any 
preliminary determination of economic justification.

                               Table V.37--Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                          Product class                          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops.......................            n.a.            n.a.            n.a.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops............................             0.5             0.5            66.0
Gas Cooking Tops................................................             6.4             3.8             3.8
Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding...........................             1.8             1.8             9.4
Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In......................             1.8             1.8             9.4
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding.........................             1.8             1.8             9.4
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In....................             1.8             1.8             9.4
Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding................................             8.5             8.5            24.4
Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In...........................             8.9             8.9            24.7
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding..............................             8.7             8.7            24.4
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.........................             8.9             8.9            24.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The entry ``n.a.'' means not applicable because the evaluated standard is the baseline.

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of new and amended 
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of consumer conventional 
cooking products. The following section describes the expected impacts 
on manufacturers at each considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the TSD for this 
SNOPR explains the analysis 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 would result from the analyzed 
energy conservation standards. The following tables summarize the 
estimated financial impacts (represented by changes in INPV) of 
potential new and amended energy conservation standards on 
manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products, as well as the 
conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers of consumer 
conventional cooking products would incur at each TSL. To evaluate the 
range of cash-flow impacts on the consumer conventional cooking product 
industry, DOE modeled two scenarios using different assumptions that 
correspond to the range of anticipated market responses to new and 
amended energy conservation standards: (1) the preservation of gross 
margin scenario and (2) the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    In the preservation of gross margin scenario, consumer conventional 
cooking product manufacturers are able to maintain their margins (as a 
percentage), even as the MPCs of consumer conventional cooking products 
increase due to energy conservation standards. The same uniform margin 
of 17 percent is applied across all efficiency levels in the 
preservation of gross margin.\104\ In the preservation of operating 
profit scenario, manufacturers are not able to maintain their original 
margins of 17 percent, in the standards cases. Instead, manufacturers 
are only able to maintain the same operating profit (in absolute 
dollars) in the standards cases as in the no-new-standards case, 
despite higher MPCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ The gross margin percentage of 17 percent is based on a 
manufacturer markup of 1.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of the modeled scenarios results in a unique set of cash-flows 
and corresponding industry values at each TSL for consumer conventional 
cooking product manufacturers. In the following discussion, the INPV 
results refer to the difference in industry value between the no-new-
standards case and each standards case resulting from the sum of 
discounted cash-flows from 2022 through 2056. To provide perspective on 
the short-run cash-flow impact, DOE includes in the discussion of 
results a comparison of free cash flow between the no-new-standards 
case and the standards case at each TSL in the year before new and 
amended standards are required.
    DOE presents the range in INPV for consumer conventional cooking 
product manufacturers in Table V.38 and Table V.39.

[[Page 6880]]



   Table V.38--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products--Preservation of Gross
                                                 Margin Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Trial standard level *
                                      Units           No-new-    -----------------------------------------------
                                                  standards case         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV..........................  2021$ millions..           1,607           1,506           1,456             422
Change in INPV................  2021$ millions..  ..............         (100.7)         (150.4)       (1,185.1)
                                %...............  ..............           (6.3)           (9.4)          (73.8)
Product Conversion Costs......  2021$ millions..  ..............            45.5           109.9         1,401.6
Capital Conversion Costs......  2021$ millions..  ..............            58.5            73.5           444.8
Total Conversion Costs........  2021$ millions..  ..............           104.1           183.4         1,846.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses indicate negative values. Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding.


 Table V.39--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products--Preservation of Operating
                                                 Profit Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Trial standard level *
                                      Units           No-new-    -----------------------------------------------
                                                  standards case         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV..........................  2021$ millions..           1,607           1,502           1,452             238
Change in INPV................  2021$ millions..  ..............         (105.1)         (154.8)       (1,368.6)
                                %...............  ..............           (6.5)           (9.6)          (85.2)
Product Conversion Costs......  2021$ millions..  ..............            45.5           109.9         1,401.6
Capital Conversion Costs......  2021$ millions..  ..............            58.5            73.5           444.8
Total Conversion Costs........  2021$ millions..  ..............           104.1           183.4         1,846.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses indicate negative values. Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding.

    At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from -$105.1 
million to -$100.7 million, which represents a change of -6.5 percent 
to -6.3. percent, respectively. At TSL 1, industry free cash-flow 
decrease to $90.3 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 
42.5 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $132.9 
million in 2026, the year before the estimated compliance date.
    TSL 1 would set the energy conservation standard at baseline for 
the electric open (coil) element cooking top product class and at EL 1 
for all other product classes. DOE estimates that 100 percent of the 
electric open (coil) element cooking top shipments, 80 percent of the 
electric smooth element cooking top shipments, 52 percent of the gas 
cooking top shipments, 95 percent of the electric oven shipments, and 
96 percent of the gas oven shipments would already meet or exceed the 
efficiency levels required at TSL 1 in 2027.
    At TSL 1, DOE expects consumer conventional cooking product 
manufacturers to incur approximately $45.5 million in product 
conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant cooking top models and 
oven models, as well as to test all (both compliant and newly 
redesigned) cooking top models to DOE's cooking top test procedure. 
Additionally, consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers would 
incur approximately $58.5 million in capital conversion costs to 
purchase new tooling and equipment necessary to produce all electric 
smooth element cooking top models and all oven models to use switch-
mode power supplies and to purchase new molds for grates and burners 
for gas cooking top models that would not meet this energy conservation 
standard.
    At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted average MPC for consumer 
conventional cooking products slightly increases by 0.5 percent 
relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC in 
2027. In the preservation of gross margin scenario, manufacturers can 
fully pass on this slight cost increase. The slight increase in 
shipment weighted average MPC is outweighed by the $104.1 million in 
conversion costs, causing a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 1 
under the preservation of gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers 
earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-
new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit 
from their investments or higher MPCs. In this scenario, the 0.5 
percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a reduction 
in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the 
margin and the $104.1 million in conversion costs incurred by 
manufacturers cause a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under 
the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from -$154.8 
million to -$150.4 million, which represents a change of -9.6 percent 
to -9.4 percent, respectively. At TSL 2, industry free cash-flow 
decrease to $60.7 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 
72.2 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $132.9 
million in 2026, the year before the estimated compliance date.
    TSL 2 would set the energy conservation standard at baseline for 
the electric open (coil) element cooking top product class; at EL 1 for 
the electric smooth element cooking top and for all oven product 
classes (electric and gas); and at EL 2 for the gas cooking top product 
class, which represents max-tech for this product class. DOE estimates 
that 100 percent of the electric open (coil) element cooking top 
shipments, 80 percent of the electric smooth element cooking top 
shipments, 4 percent of the gas cooking top shipments, 95 percent of 
the electric oven shipments, and 96 percent of the gas oven shipments 
would already meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 2 in 
2027.
    At TSL 2, DOE expects consumer conventional cooking product 
manufacturers to incur approximately $109.9 million in product 
conversion costs at this TSL. This includes testing costs and product 
redesign costs. The majority of the product conversion costs

[[Page 6881]]

are for gas cooking top manufacturers to redesign non-compliant gas 
cooking top models to meet this energy conservation standard, as well 
as to test all (both compliant and newly redesigned) cooking top models 
to DOE's cooking top test procedure. Additionally, consumer 
conventional cooking product manufacturers would incur approximately 
$73.5 million in capital conversion costs to purchase new tooling and 
equipment necessary to produce all electric smooth element cooking top 
models and all oven models to use switch-mode power supplies and to 
purchase new molds for grates and burners for gas cooking top models 
that would not meet this energy conservation standard.
    At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted average MPC for consumer 
conventional cooking products slightly increases by 0.5 percent 
relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC in 
2027. In the preservation of gross margin scenario, manufacturers can 
fully pass on this slight cost increase. The slight increase in 
shipment weighted average MPC is outweighed by the $183.4 million in 
conversion costs, causing a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 2 
under the preservation of gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the 0.5 
percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a reduction 
in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the 
manufacturer markup and the $183.4 million in conversion costs incurred 
by manufacturers cause a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 2 
under the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from -$1,368.6 
million to -$1,185.1 million, which represents a change of -85.2 
percent to -73.8 percent, respectively. At TSL 3, industry free cash-
flow decrease to -$666.2 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 799.0 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case 
value of $132.9 million in 2026, the year before the estimated 
compliance date.
    TSL 3 would set the energy conservation standard at baseline for 
the electric open (coil) element cooking top product class; at EL 2 for 
the gas cooking top product class and for all the gas oven product 
classes (standard and self-clean); and at EL 3 for the electric smooth 
element cooking top product class and for all the electric oven product 
classes (standard and self-clean). This represents max-tech for all 
product classes. DOE estimates that 100 percent of the electric open 
(coil) element cooking top shipments, 5 percent of the electric smooth 
element cooking top shipments, 4 percent of the gas cooking top 
shipments, zero percent of the electric standard oven (freestanding and 
built-in) shipments, zero percent of the electric self-clean oven 
(freestanding) shipments, 2 percent of the electric self-clean (built-
in) shipments, 62 percent of gas standard oven (freestanding) 
shipments, 38 percent of the gas standard oven (built-in) shipments, 93 
percent of the gas self-clean oven (freestanding) shipments, and 77 
percent of the gas self-clean (built-in) shipments would already meet 
the efficiency levels required at TSL 3 in 2027.
    At TSL 3, DOE expects consumer conventional cooking product 
manufacturers to incur approximately $1,401.6 million in product 
conversion costs at this TSL. This includes testing costs and product 
redesign costs. At this TSL electric smooth element cooking top 
manufacturers would have to completely redesign most of their electric 
smooth element cooking top models to use induction technology. Electric 
oven manufacturers would have to completely redesign all of their 
electric oven models to use oven separators. Additionally, consumer 
conventional cooking product manufacturers would incur approximately 
$444.8 million in capital conversion costs to purchase new tooling and 
equipment necessary to produce the numerous redesigned cooking top and 
oven models at this TSL.
    At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted average MPC for consumer 
conventional cooking products significantly increases by 17.7 percent 
relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC in 
2027. In the preservation of gross margin scenario, manufacturers can 
fully pass on this cost increase. The significant increase in shipment 
weighted average MPC is outweighed by the $1,846.4 million in 
conversion costs, causing a significantly negative change in INPV at 
TSL 3 under the preservation of gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the 17.7 
percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a reduction 
in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the 
margin and the $1,846.4 million in conversion costs incurred by 
manufacturers cause a significantly negative change in INPV at TSL 3 
under the preservation of operating profit scenario.
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    To quantitatively assess the potential impacts of new and amended 
energy conservation standards on direct employment in the consumer 
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 in each of the standards cases (i.e., TSLs) 
during the analysis period.
    Production employees are those who are directly involved in 
fabricating and assembling products within a manufacturer facility. 
Workers performing services that are closely associated with production 
operations, such as materials handling tasks using forklifts, are 
included as production labor, as well as line supervisors.
    DOE used the GRIM to calculate the number of production employees 
from labor expenditures. DOE used statistical data from the U.S. Census 
Bureau's 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers (``ASM'') and the results 
of the engineering analysis to calculate industry-wide labor 
expenditures. Labor expenditures related to product manufacturing 
depend on the labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, and an 
assumption that wages remain fixed in real terms over time. The total 
labor expenditures in the GRIM were then converted to domestic 
production employment levels by dividing production labor expenditures 
by the annual payment per production worker.
    Non-production employees account for those workers that are not 
directly engaged in the manufacturing of the covered products. This 
could include sales, human resources, engineering, and management. DOE 
estimated non-production employment levels by multiplying the number of 
consumer conventional cooking product workers by a scaling factor. The 
scaling factor is calculated by taking the ratio of the total number of 
employees, and the total production workers associated with the 
industry NAICS code 335220, which covers consumer conventional cooking 
product manufacturing.
    The employment impacts shown in Table V.40 represent the potential 
domestic production employment that could result following the 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 new and amended energy 
conservation standards when assuming that manufacturers continue to 
produce

[[Page 6882]]

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 risk of manufacturers evaluating 
sourcing decisions in response to the 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 existing domestic 
production were moved outside of the United States. While the results 
present a range of domestic employment impacts following 2027, the 
following sections also include qualitative discussions of the 
likelihood of negative employment impacts at the various TSLs.
    Using 2019 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 new and amended energy conservation standards, there would be 
approximately 4,322 domestic production workers involved in 
manufacturing consumer conventional cooking products in 2027. Table 
V.40 shows the range of the impacts of the new and amended energy 
conservation standards on U.S. production workers in the consumer 
conventional cooking product industry.

               Table V.40--Domestic Employment for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products in 2027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      No-new-                  Trial standard level
                                                     standards   -----------------------------------------------
                                                       case              1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Production Workers in 2027.............           4,322           4,343           4,343           4,880
Domestic Non-Production Workers in 2027.........             631             634             634             713
Total Direct Employment in 2027.................           4,953           4,977           4,977           5,593
Potential Changes in Total Direct Employment in   ..............            0-21            0-21     (1,068)-558
 2027 *.........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE presents a range of potential impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.

    At the upper end of the range, all examined TSLs show an increase 
in the number of domestic production workers for consumer conventional 
cooking products. The upper end of the range represents a scenario 
where manufacturers 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.
    At the lower end of the range, all examined TSLs show either no 
change in domestic production employment or a decrease in domestic 
production employment. The lower end of the domestic employment range 
assumes that gas cooking top domestic production employment does not 
change at any TSL. Manufacturing more efficient gas cooking tops by 
optimizing the burner and improving grates would not impact the 
location where production occurs for this product class. Additionally, 
this lower range assumes that TSLs set at EL 1 for all oven product 
classes and the electric smooth element cooking top product class would 
not change the domestic production employment. EL 1 would require SMPSs 
for all oven product classes and can be achieved using low-standby-loss 
electronic controls for the electric smooth element cooking top product 
class. The majority of manufacturers already use SMPSs in their ovens 
and are able to meet the efficiency requirements at EL 1 for the 
electric smooth element cooking top product class. Adding these standby 
features to models currently not using these features would not change 
the location where production occurs for these product classes.
    At the lower end of the range, DOE estimated that up to 50 percent 
of domestic production employment for the electric smooth element 
cooking top product class could be relocated abroad at max-tech. 
Additionally, DOE estimated that up to 25 percent of domestic 
production employment for the oven product classes could be relocated 
abroad at max-tech. DOE estimates that there would be approximately 584 
domestic production employees involved in the production of electric 
smooth element cooking tops and 3,102 domestic production employees 
involved in the production covering all oven product classes in 2027 in 
the no-new-standards case. Using these values to estimate the lower end 
of the range, DOE estimated that up to 1,068 domestic production 
employees could be eliminated at TSL 3 (due to standards being set at 
max-tech for the electric smooth element cooking top product class and 
for all oven product classes).\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ 584 x 50% + 3,102 x 25% = 1,067.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE provides a range of potential impacts to domestic production 
employment as each manufacturer would make a business decision that 
best suits their individual product needs. However, manufacturers 
stated during interviews that due to the larger size of most consumer 
conventional cooking products, there are few units that 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 abroad, as several manufacturers either only produce 
consumer conventional cooking products domestically or have made 
significant investments to continue to produce consumer conventional 
cooking products domestically.
    DOE requests comment on the estimated potential domestic employment 
impacts on consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers 
presented in this SNOPR.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    Manufacturers stated that any standard requiring induction heating 
technology for electric smooth element cooking tops would be very 
difficult to meet since there are approximately 5 percent of shipments 
currently using this technology. Additionally, any standards requiring 
oven separators for the electric oven product classes would be very 
difficult to meet since that would require completely redesigning the 
oven cavity of almost every electric oven model currently on the 
market.
    All other ELs analyzed require making incremental improvements to 
existing designs and should not present any manufacturing capacity 
constraints given the 3-year compliance period proposed in this SNOPR.

[[Page 6883]]

    DOE requests comment on the potential manufacturing capacity 
constraints placed on consumer conventional cooking product 
manufacturers at the TSLs presented in this SNOPR.
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 energy conservation 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. For the cooking top product classes, while 
commercial-style manufacturers do not produce electric open (coil) 
element cooking tops, some commercial-style manufacturers do produce 
electric smooth element cooking tops. Of those commercial-style 
manufacturers that do produce electric smooth element cooking tops, all 
these manufacturers have products that use induction technology and 
would be able to meet the max-tech for this product class.
    Commercial-style manufacturers would likely face more difficulty 
meeting potential standards set for the gas cooking top product class 
than other consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers. 
However, as previously stated in IV.C.1, all analyzed ELs for the gas 
cooking top product class are achievable with continuous cast-iron 
grates and at least one HIR burner. Therefore, while commercial-style 
manufacturers would likely have to redesign a higher portion of their 
gas cooking top models compared to other consumer conventional cooking 
product manufacturers, all ELs for the gas cooking top product class 
are achievable for commercial-style manufacturers.
    For the oven product classes, the vast majority of commercial-style 
electric and gas ovens already use SMPSs in their ovens and would not 
have difficulty meeting potential standard levels requiring SMPSs for 
any oven product classes. Additionally, commercial-style manufactures 
typically have a higher percentage of gas oven models that use forced 
convention than other consumer conventional cooking product 
manufacturers. However, like the rest of the market, there are very 
few, if any, commercial-style electric ovens equipped with an oven 
separator and it would be difficult for commercial-style manufacturers 
to convert all of their oven cavities into ovens equipped with an oven 
separator.
    DOE requests comment on the potential impacts on commercial-style 
manufacturers at the TSLs presented in this SNOPR.
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 an 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 an analysis of 
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 
appliance efficiency.
    DOE evaluates product-specific regulations that will take effect 
approximately 3 years before or after the estimated 2027 compliance 
date of any new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer 
conventional cooking products. This information is presented in Table 
V.41.

Table V.41--Compliance Dates and Expected Conversion Expenses of Federal Energy Conservation Standards Affecting
                               Consumer Conventional Cooking Product Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Industry
                                                       Number of      Approx.       Industry        conversion
   Federal energy conservation        Number of      manufacturers   standards     conversion      costs/product
            standard               manufacturers *   affected from     year     costs (millions)    revenue ***
                                                     this rule **                                    (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portable Air Conditioners, 85 FR                11               1        2025    $320.9 (2015$)             6.7
 1378 (Jan. 10, 2020)...........
Room Air Conditioners,[dagger]                   8               3        2026      22.8 (2020$)             0.5
 87 FR 20608 (Apr. 7, 2022).....
Microwave Ovens,[dagger] 87 FR                  18              10        2026      46.1 (2021$)             0.7
 52282 (Aug. 24, 2022)..........
Clothes Dryers,[dagger] 87 FR                   15               8        2027     149.7 (2020$)             1.8
 51734 (Aug. 23, 2022)..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This column presents the total number of manufacturers identified in the energy conservation standard rule
  contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
** This column presents the number of manufacturers producing consumer conventional cooking products that are
  also listed as manufacturers in the listed energy conservation standard contributing to cumulative regulatory
  burden.
*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of product revenue during the conversion
  period. Industry conversion costs are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant
  products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue from just the covered product/
  equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs are
  made and lasts from the publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the energy conservation
  standard. The conversion period typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on the rulemaking.
[dagger] Indicates a NOPR publications. Values may change on publication of a Final Rule.

    In addition to the rulemaking listed in Table V.41 DOE has ongoing 
rulemakings for other products or equipment that consumer conventional 
cooking product manufacturers

[[Page 6884]]

produce, including air cleaners; \106\ automatic commercial ice makers; 
\107\ commercial clothes washers; \108\ dehumidifiers; \109\ 
miscellaneous refrigeration products; \110\ refrigerators, 
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; \111\ and residential clothes 
washers.\112\ If DOE proposes or finalizes any energy conservation 
standards for these products or equipment prior to finalizing energy 
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products, DOE 
will include the energy conservation standards for these other products 
or equipment as part of the cumulative regulatory burden for the 
consumer conventional cooking products final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035.
    \107\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022.
    \108\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0044.
    \109\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0043.
    \110\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039.
    \111\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003.
    \112\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative 
regulatory burden on manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking 
products associated with multiple DOE standards or product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies.
3. National Impact Analysis
    This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy 
savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of 
the TSLs considered as potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
    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 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 amended 
standards (2027-2056). Table V.42 presents DOE's projections of the 
national energy savings for each TSL considered for consumer 
conventional cooking products. The savings were calculated using the 
approach described in section IV.H.3 of this document.

Table V.42--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products; 30 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       quads
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy..................................................            0.26            0.43            1.39
FFC energy......................................................            0.28            0.46            1.47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Circular A-4 \113\ 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 rulemaking, 
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, 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.\114\ 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.43. The impacts are counted 
over the lifetime of consumer conventional cooking products purchased 
in 2027-2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. 
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed 
July 11, 2022).
    \114\ 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. 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.

 Table V.43--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products; 9 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2035]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       quads
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy..................................................            0.07            0.12            0.37
FFC energy......................................................            0.08            0.13            0.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 6885]]

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,\115\ DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and 
a 3-percent real discount rate. Table V.44 shows the consumer NPV 
results with impacts counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 
2027-2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. 
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed 
July 11, 2022).

  Table V.44--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products; 30
                                               Years of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                          Discount rate                          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2              3 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   billion 2021$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent.......................................................            0.96            1.71         (27.75)
7 percent.......................................................            0.33            0.65         (15.68)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Negative values denoted in parentheses.

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period are presented in Table V.45. The impacts are counted over the 
lifetime of products purchased in 2027-2035. As mentioned previously, 
such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not 
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision 
criteria.

   Table V.45--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products; 9
                                               Years of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2035]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                    Discount rate  (percent)                     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2              3 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   billion 2021$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3...............................................................            0.32            0.61          (9.86)
7...............................................................            0.15            0.31          (7.48)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Negative values denoted in parentheses.

    The previous 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 SNOPR. 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. 
In each case, net benefits remain positive.
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    It is estimated that that amended energy conservation standards for 
consumer conventional cooking products would reduce energy expenditures 
for consumers of those products, with the resulting net savings being 
redirected to other forms of economic activity. These expected shifts 
in spending and economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As 
described in section IV.N of this document, DOE used an input/output 
model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of 
the TSLs that DOE considered. There are uncertainties involved in 
projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of 
the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes 
(2027), where these uncertainties are reduced.
    The results suggest that the proposed standards would be likely to 
have a negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. 
The net change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in 
national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated 
effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the TSD for this SNOPR presents 
detailed results regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    As discussed in section IV.C of this document, DOE has tentatively 
concluded that the standards proposed in this SNOPR would not lessen 
the utility or performance of the consumer conventional cooking 
products under consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these 
products currently offer units that meet or exceed the proposed 
standards.
    AHAM stated that the introduction of any new standards could have a 
significant impact on the utility of cooking products by, for example, 
potentially lowering burner input rates or requiring changes that would 
result in less sturdy grates. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4)
    As discuss in section IV.C of this document, when evaluating higher 
ELs

[[Page 6886]]

for gas cooking tops, DOE ensured that all potential standard levels 
would maintain the ability for cooking tops to offer at least one HIR 
burner and continuous cast-iron grates.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to 
result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section III.F.1.e 
of this document, the Attorney General determines the impact, if any, 
of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed 
standard, and transmits such determination in writing to the Secretary, 
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. To 
assist the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE has 
provided DOJ with copies of this SNOPR and the accompanying TSD for 
review. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the proposed rule in 
determining whether to proceed to a final rule. DOE will publish and 
respond to DOJ's comments in that document.
    As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this SNOPR, DOE estimates 
that there are approximately 34 manufacturers of consumer conventional 
cooking products supplying the domestic market, and that three major 
manufacturers represent roughly 85 percent of the market. The major 
manufacturers offer a full array of appliances under multiple brands at 
a range of price points. Other manufacturers offer a much more limited 
set of products that are focused on the higher end premium products or 
other consumer niches.
    The consumer conventional cooking product market can be divided 
into three sub-markets: a smaller entry level ``value'' consumer 
conventional cooking product market; a mass-market consumer 
conventional cooking product market; and a premium commercial-style 
consumer conventional cooking product market. The smaller entry level 
consumer conventional cooking product market typically consists of 
ovens, cooking tops, and ranges that have a width of 30'' or less. 
These products typically compete on price, as consumers that purchase 
these products are price sensitive. The mass-market consumer 
conventional cooking product market makes up the vast majority of the 
consumer conventional cooking product market. These are ovens, cooking 
tops, and ranges that are sold in big box retail stores and larger 
internet retailers. The premium commercial-style consumer conventional 
cooking product market typically consists of ovens, cooking tops, and 
ranges, that have a width of 30'' or larger that have gas cooking tops, 
gas ovens, or electric self-clean ovens marketed as commercial-style, 
either as a stand-alone product or as a component of a conventional 
range. These products typically do compete on brand and features as 
well as price and are significantly more expensive than the mass-
produced consumer conventional cooking products.
    As discussed in section III.C of this document, there is currently 
no test procedure for conventional ovens and efficiency gains can be 
obtained from product redesigns of design improvements at low 
incremental manufacturing costs.
    For products sold in all three consumer conventional cooking 
product sub-markets, meeting energy conservation standards for consumer 
conventional ovens set at EL 1 (TSL 1 and TSL 2) would not present a 
significant challenge for any consumer conventional cooking product 
manufacturer. Based on the shipments analysis used in the NIA, DOE 
estimates that approximately 95 percent of ovens will meet or exceed EL 
1 by the estimated compliance date. The remaining five percent of the 
market would need to purchase switch-mode power supplies to be used in 
their consumer conventional ovens. Switch-mode power supplies are 
widely used and readily available and constitute a minor increase in 
production costs for the consumer conventional ovens that do not 
currently use switch-mode power supplies.
    As discussed in section III.C of this document, although there is a 
new test procedure for conventional cooking tops, there is no current 
performance standard. As a result, conventional cooking top design may 
not be optimized to the IAEC metric and efficiency gains can be 
obtained from product redesigns at low incremental manufacturing costs.
    Regarding standards for consumer conventional cooking tops, the 
majority of smaller entry level ``value'' consumer conventional cooking 
products would not be significantly impacted by any energy conservation 
standards set below max-tech for consumer conventional cooking tops. 
The majority of consumer conventional cooking tops sold in the smaller 
entry level ``value'' consumer conventional cooking product market 
either have electric open (coil) element cooking tops or gas-cooking 
tops with thinner non-continuous grates. DOE is only considering a 
baseline efficiency level for electric open (coil) element cooking tops 
that can be meet by all products. Gas cooking tops with thinner non-
continuous grates typically are at max-tech. It is unlikely that many 
gas cooking tops sold in the smaller entry level ``value'' consumer 
conventional cooking product market would have to redesign their 
products to meet standards set at any efficiency level.
    For the mass-market consumer conventional cooking product market, 
most electric smooth element cooking tops will meet or exceed standards 
set at EL 1 (TSL 1 and TSL 2). The majority of electric smooth element 
cooking tops that are at baseline, EL 1, and EL 2 (i.e., not the 
electric smooth cooking tops that use induction technology, which are 
electric smooth element cooking tops meting max-tech) are sold in the 
mass-market consumer conventional cooking product market. Based on the 
shipments analysis used in the NIA, DOE estimates that approximately 80 
percent of electric smooth element cooking tops will meet or exceed EL 
1 by the estimated compliance date.
    Most of the gas cooking top products sold in the mass-market 
consumer conventional cooking product market would have to be 
redesigned to meet standards set at max-tech (TSL 2 and TSL 3). Based 
on the shipments analysis used in the NIA, DOE estimates that 
approximately 96 percent of gas cooking tops will need to be redesigned 
to meet standards set at max-tech by the estimated compliance date.
    The premium commercial-style consumer conventional cooking product 
market typically uses either electric cooking tops that use induction 
technology and are at max-tech for the electric smooth element cooking 
top product class or gas cooking tops. All electric smooth element 
cooking tops using induction technology would be able to meet standards 
set at max-tech for the electric smooth element product class. Premium 
commercial-style manufacturers would likely face more difficulty 
meeting potential standards set for the gas cooking top product class 
than other consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers. 
However, as previously stated in section IV.C.1 of this document, all 
analyzed ELs for the gas cooking top product class are achievable with 
continuous cast-iron grates and at least one HIR burner. Therefore, 
while commercial-style manufacturers would likely have to redesign a 
higher portion of their gas cooking top models compared to other 
consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers, all ELs for the 
gas cooking top product class are achievable for commercial-style 
manufacturers. Additionally, premium commercial-style consumer 
conventional cooking products typically are not as cost sensitive as 
the other consumer

[[Page 6887]]

conventional cooking product markets. Premium commercial-style consumer 
conventional cooking product typically sell for more than twice the 
cost of mass-market consumer conventional cooking products. DOE 
anticipates that premium commercial-style consumer conventional cooking 
product manufacturers are more likely to be able to pass on cost 
increases to their customers than the other consumer conventional 
cooking product markets.
    Overall, DOE does not anticipate that energy conservation standards 
set at TSL 1 or TSL 2 would significantly alter the current market 
structure that consumer conventional cooking products are currently 
sold.
    DOE does not expect the proposed rule to increase the concentration 
in an already concentrated market. DOE understands that barriers to 
entry or expansion associated with manufacturing and selling cooking 
products is high particularly in the mass-market segment. The cost of 
developing brand recognition; achieving manufacturing scale to lower 
production costs; and developing a distribution network, are all 
significant challenges. The industry has responded by segmenting the 
market into more focused markets that allow differentiation and 
competition on factors other than price. For the reasons described in 
this section, the proposed rule likely would not alter the competitive 
balance or market structure of the consumer conventional cooking 
product industry.
    DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive 
impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, 
stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding 
these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for information to 
send comments to DOJ.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves 
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the 
environmental impacts (costs) of energy production.
    DOE seeks comment on the potential impacts on energy security as a 
result of amended standards for cooking products, which reduce the use 
of natural gas as a result of more-efficient cooking appliances.
    Reduced in-home gas combustion may deliver additional health 
benefits to consumers and their families by reducing exposure to 
various pollutants. Reduced electricity demand due to energy 
conservation standards is also likely to reduce the cost of maintaining 
the reliability of the electricity system, particularly during peak-
load periods. Chapter 15 in the TSD for this SNOPR presents the 
estimated impacts on electricity generating capacity, relative to the 
no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE considered in this 
rulemaking.
    Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation 
standards for consumer conventional cooking products is expected to 
yield environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of 
certain air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table V.46 provides DOE's 
estimate of cumulative emissions reductions expected to result from the 
TSLs considered in this rulemaking. The emissions were calculated using 
the multipliers discussed in section IV.K of this document. DOE reports 
annual emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the TSD for 
this SNOPR.

   Table V.46--Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Sector Emissions:
    CO2 (million metric tons)...................................            10.7            19.6            50.7
    CH4 (thousand tons).........................................             0.5             0.7             3.0
    N2O (thousand tons).........................................             0.1             0.1             0.4
    SO2 (thousand tons).........................................             2.2             2.2            16.6
    NOX (thousand tons).........................................             7.7            15.5            31.3
    Hg (tons)...................................................            0.01            0.01            0.11
Upstream Emissions:
    CO2 (million metric tons)...................................             1.2             2.3             4.8
    CH4 (thousand tons).........................................           120.6           244.2           479.2
    N2O (thousand tons).........................................             0.0             0.0             0.0
    SO2 (thousand tons).........................................             0.0             0.0             0.2
    NOX (thousand tons).........................................            18.1            36.3            73.7
    Hg (tons)...................................................            0.00            0.00            0.00
Total FFC Emissions:
    CO2 (million metric tons)...................................            11.9            21.9            55.5
    CH4 (thousand tons).........................................           121.1           244.9           482.2
    N2O (thousand tons).........................................             0.1             0.1             0.4
    SO2 (thousand tons).........................................             2.2             2.2            16.7
    NOX (thousand tons).........................................            25.9            51.8           105.0
    Hg (tons)...................................................            0.01            0.01            0.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the analysis for this rulemaking, DOE estimated monetary 
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 
that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for consumer 
conventional cooking products. Section IV.L of this document discusses 
the SC-CO2 values that DOE used. Table V.47 presents the 
value of CO2 emissions reduction at each TSL for each of the 
SC-CO2 cases. The time-series of annual values is presented 
for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the TSD for this SNOPR.

[[Page 6888]]



Table V.47--Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products Shipped in 2027-
                                                      2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            SC-CO2 case
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount rate and statistics
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                       TSL                              5%              3%             2.5%             3%
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           million 2021$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................           105.2           464.5           731.9         1,409.9
2...............................................           194.3           856.8         1,349.7         2,601.2
3...............................................           488.9         2,160.9         3,405.9         6,558.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section IV.L.2 of this document, DOE estimated the 
climate benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of methane 
and N2O that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs 
for consumer conventional cooking products. Table V.48 presents the 
value of the CH4 emissions reduction at each TSL, and Table 
V.49 presents the value of the N2O emissions reduction at 
each TSL. The time-series of annual values is presented for the 
proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the TSD for this SNOPR.

 Table V.48--Present Value of Methane Emissions Reduction for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products Shipped in
                                                    2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            SC-CH4 case
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount rate and statistics
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                       TSL                              5%              3%             2.5%             3%
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           million 2021$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            49.8           152.5           214.2           403.4
2...............................................           101.1           309.0           433.8           817.4
3...............................................           197.1           606.1           851.8         1,603.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table V.49--Present Value of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reduction for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
                                              Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            SC-N2O case
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount rate and statistics
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                       TSL                              5%              3%             2.5%             3%
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           million 2021$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            0.21            0.89            1.38            2.36
2...............................................            0.28            1.17            1.83            3.11
3...............................................            1.42            5.84            9.13           15.57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in 
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the 
global and U.S. economy continues to evolve rapidly. DOE, together with 
other Federal agencies, will continue to review methodologies for 
estimating the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other 
GHG emissions. This ongoing review will consider the comments on this 
subject that are part of the public record for this and other 
rulemakings, as well as other methodological assumptions and issues. 
DOE notes that the proposed standards would be economically justified 
even without inclusion of monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.
    DOE also estimated the monetary value of the health benefits 
associated with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions 
anticipated to result from the considered TSLs for consumer 
conventional cooking products. The dollar-per-ton values that DOE used 
are discussed in section IV.L of this document. Table V.50 presents the 
present value for NOX emissions reduction for each TSL 
calculated using 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, and Table V.51 
presents similar results for SO2 emissions reductions. The 
results in these tables reflect application

[[Page 6889]]

of EPA's low dollar-per-ton values, which DOE used to be conservative. 
The time-series of annual values is presented for the proposed TSL in 
chapter 14 of the TSD for this SNOPR.

    Table V.50--Present Value of NO2 Emissions Reduction for Consumer
           Conventional Cooking Products Shipped in 2027-2056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            3% Discount     7% Discount
                   TSL                         rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   million 2021$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................           793.7           297.5
2.......................................         1,521.9           572.9
3.......................................         3,482.5         1,299.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table V.51--Present Value of SO2 Emissions Reduction for Consumer
           Conventional Cooking Products Shipped in 2027-2056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            3% Discount     7% Discount
                   TSL                         rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   million 2021$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................           109.0            41.1
2.......................................           111.0            41.9
3.......................................           842.8           319.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has not considered the monetary benefits of the reduction of Hg 
for this proposed rule. DOE has also not quantitatively assessed the 
health benefits of reducing in-home exposure to particulate matter, 
nitrogen dioxide, and other hazardous air pollutants. Such in-home 
emissions may be associated with a variety of serious respiratory and 
cardiovascular conditions and other health risks. Not all the public 
health and environmental benefits from the reduction of greenhouse 
gases, NOX, and SO2 are captured in the values 
above, and additional unquantified benefits from the reductions of 
those pollutants as well as from the reduction of Hg, direct PM, and 
other co-pollutants may be significant. For example, studies have 
indicated that gas ranges, particularly when used without venting 
systems, can expose household members to indoor air pollution at levels 
that exceed health-based guidelines.
    DOE seeks comment on any impacts of its proposals in this SNOPR on 
indoor air pollutants released by gas cooking products, as well as any 
other design approaches, control strategies, or other measures to 
mitigate these emissions.
7. Other Factors
    The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No 
other factors were considered in this analysis.
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    Table V.52 presents the NPV values that result from adding the 
estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced 
GHG, NOX and SO2 emissions to the NPV of consumer 
benefits calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. The 
consumer benefits are domestic U.S. monetary savings that occur as a 
result of purchasing the covered products, and are measured for the 
lifetime of products shipped in 2027-2056. The climate benefits 
associated with reduced GHG emissions resulting from the adopted 
standards are global benefits and are also calculated based on the 
lifetime of consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 2027-
2056.

          Table V.52--Consumer NPV Combined With Present Value of Climate Benefits and Health Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                                   TSL 1           TSL 2          TSL 3 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case..........................................            2.02            3.64         (22.74)
3% Average SC-GHG case..........................................            2.49            4.51         (20.65)
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........................................            2.81            5.13         (19.16)
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case..................................            3.68            6.77         (15.25)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case..........................................            0.82            1.56         (13.37)
3% Average SC-GHG case..........................................            1.28            2.43         (11.29)
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........................................            1.61            3.05          (9.79)
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case..................................            2.48            4.68          (5.88)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Negative values denoted in parentheses.


[[Page 6890]]

C. Conclusion

    When considering new or 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 SNOPR, DOE considered the impacts of new and amended 
standards for consumer conventional cooking products at each TSL, 
beginning with the maximum technologically feasible level, to determine 
whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level 
was not justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level 
and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest 
efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically 
justified and saves a significant amount of energy. DOE refers to this 
process at the ``walk-down'' analysis.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on 
employment.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers 
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of 
information or informational asymmetries, (2) a lack of sufficient 
salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits, (3) a lack of 
sufficient personal financial savings to warrant delaying or altering 
purchases, (4) excessive focus on the short term, in the form of 
inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings relative to 
available returns on other investments, due to loss aversion, myopia, 
inattention, or other factors, (5) computational or other difficulties 
associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs, and (6) a 
divergence in incentives (for example, between renters and owners, or 
builders and purchasers, or between current and subsequent owners). 
Having less than perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty 
about the future, consumers may trade off these types of investments at 
a higher-than-expected rate between current consumption and uncertain 
future energy cost savings.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to 
lost revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy 
savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the 
standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products 
purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings 
from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of 
shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 
of the TSD for this SNOPR. However, DOE's current analysis does not 
explicitly control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, 
preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, or 
consumer price sensitivity variation according to household 
income.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883. 
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller 
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes 
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, 
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical 
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare 
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses 
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy conservation 
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these 
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf (last accessed June 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE welcomes data submissions and comments that will provide for a 
fuller assessment of the potential impact of energy conservation 
standards on consumer choice and how to quantify this impact in its 
regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer Conventional 
Cooking Products Standards
    Table V.53 and Table V.54 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 amended standards 
(2027-2056). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of 
emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. DOE is 
presenting monetized benefits in accordance with the applicable 
Executive Orders and DOE would reach the same conclusion presented in 
this notice in the absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases, 
including the Interim Estimates presented by the Interagency Working 
Group. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in 
section V.A of this document.

   Table V.53--Summary of Analytical Results for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                                   TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings:
    Quads.......................................................            0.28            0.46            1.47
    CO2 (million metric tons)...................................            11.9            21.9            55.5

[[Page 6891]]

 
    CH4 (thousand tons).........................................           121.1           244.9           482.2
    N2O (thousand tons).........................................             0.1             0.1             0.4
    SO2 (thousand tons).........................................             2.2             2.2            16.7
    NOX (thousand tons).........................................            25.9            51.8           105.0
    Hg (tons)...................................................            0.01            0.01            0.11
Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate,
 billion 2021$):
    Consumer Operating Cost Savings.............................            1.53            2.28            8.02
    Climate Benefits *..........................................            0.62            1.17            2.77
    Health Benefits **..........................................            0.90            1.63            4.33
        Total Benefits [dagger].................................            3.05            5.08           15.12
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].................            0.56            0.56           35.77
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Consumer Net Benefits ***...................................            0.96            1.71         (27.75)
        Total Net Benefits ***..................................            2.49            4.51         (20.65)
Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate,
 billion 2021$):
    Consumer Operating Cost Savings.............................            0.63            0.95            3.17
    Climate Benefits*...........................................            0.62            1.17            2.77
    Health Benefits**...........................................            0.34            0.61            1.62
        Total Benefits[dagger]..................................            1.59            2.74            7.56
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].................            0.31            0.31           18.85
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Consumer Net Benefits***....................................            0.33            0.65         (15.68)
        Total Net Monetized Benefits***.........................            1.28            2.43         (11.29)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped
  in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in
  2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together,
  these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated
  with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single
  central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted
  the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary
  injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's
  order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's
  appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined
  the defendants in that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim
  estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
  Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
  emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents
  monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
  of this document for more details.
*** Negative values denoted in parentheses.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
  and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes
  the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.


   Table V.54--Summary of Analytical Results for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products TSLs: Manufacturer and
                                                Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                                   TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts:
    Industry NPV (million 2021$) (No-new-standards case INPV =       1,502-1,506     1,452-1,456         238-422
     1,607).....................................................
    Industry NPV (% change).....................................     (6.5)-(6.3)     (9.6)-(9.4)   (85.2)-(73.8)
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021$):
    Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops...................           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00
    Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops........................          $13.29          $13.29       ($580.31)
    Gas Cooking Tops............................................           $3.88          $21.89          $21.89
    Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding.......................           $0.99           $0.99        ($29.92)
    Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In..................           $0.95           $0.95        ($33.05)
    Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding.....................           $1.02           $1.02        ($15.31)
    Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In................           $1.01           $1.01        ($10.84)
    Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding............................           $0.65           $0.65         ($7.56)
    Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.......................           $0.59           $0.59        ($13.37)
    Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding..........................           $0.70           $0.70         ($0.86)
    Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.....................           $0.60           $0.60         ($4.52)
    Shipment-Weighted Average *.................................           $3.19           $6.75        ($87.60)
Consumer Simple PBP (years):
    Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops...................            n.a.            n.a.            n.a.
    Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops........................             0.6             0.6            87.5

[[Page 6892]]

 
    Gas Cooking Tops............................................             8.4             5.0             5.0
    Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding.......................             1.7             1.7            17.0
    Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In..................             1.8             1.8            17.2
    Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding.....................             1.7             1.7            17.0
    Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In................             1.8             1.8            17.2
    Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding............................             1.9             1.9            14.1
    Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.......................             2.0             2.0            14.4
    Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding..........................             1.9             1.9            14.1
    Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.....................             2.0             2.0            14.4
    Shipment-Weighted Average *.................................             2.7             2.0            22.4
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost:
    Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops...................              0%              0%              0%
    Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops........................              0%              0%             95%
    Gas Cooking Tops............................................             27%             18%             18%
    Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding.......................              0%              0%             80%
    Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In..................              0%              0%             81%
    Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding.....................              0%              0%             75%
    Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In................              0%              0%             72%
    Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding............................              1%              1%             33%
    Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.......................              1%              1%             56%
    Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding..........................              1%              1%              6%
    Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.....................              1%              1%             20%
    Shipment-Weighted Average *.................................              6%              4%             48%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. The entry ``n.a.'' means not applicable the evaluated standard is the
  baseline.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027.

    DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels for all product classes except for electric open 
(coil) element cooking tops, for which the only considered efficiency 
level is the baseline. TSL 3 would save an estimated 1.47 quads of 
energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of 
consumer benefit would decrease compared to the no-new-standards case 
by $15.68 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and by $27.75 
billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 55.5 Mt of 
CO2, 16.7 thousand tons of SO2, 105.0 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.11 tons of Hg, 482.2 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.4 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 3 is $2.77 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 3 is $1.62 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $4.33 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $11.29 
billion less than the no-new-standards case. Using a 3-percent discount 
rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is 
$20.65 billion less than the no-new-standards case. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information. However, DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $22 for gas 
cooking tops and an average LCC loss of $580 for electric smooth 
element cooking tops, $30 for freestanding electric standard ovens, $33 
for built-in/slide-in electric standard ovens, $15 for freestanding 
electric self-clean ovens, $11 for built-in/slide-in electric self-
clean ovens, $8 for freestanding gas standard ovens, $13 for built-in/
slide-in gas standard ovens, $1 for freestanding gas self-clean ovens, 
and $5 for built-in/slide-in gas self-clean ovens. The simple payback 
period is 87.5 years for electric smooth element cooking tops, 5.0 
years for gas cooking tops, 17.0 years for freestanding electric ovens, 
17.2 years for built-in/slide-in electric ovens, 14.1 years for 
freestanding gas ovens, and 14.4 years for built-in/slide-in gas ovens. 
The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 95 percent for 
electric smooth element cooking tops, 18 percent for gas cooking tops, 
80 percent for freestanding electric standard ovens, 81 percent for 
built-in/slide-in electric standard ovens, 75 percent for freestanding 
electric self-clean ovens, 72 percent for built-in/slide-in electric 
self-clean ovens, 33 percent for freestanding gas standard ovens, 56 
percent for built-in/slide-in gas standard ovens, 6 percent for 
freestanding gas self-clean ovens, and 20 percent for built-in/slide-in 
gas self-clean ovens. At TSL 3, the proposed standard for electric open 
(coil) element cooking tops is at the baseline resulting in no LCC 
impact, an undefined PBP, and no consumers experiencing a net LCC cost.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$1,368.6 million to a decrease of $1,185.1 million, which corresponds 
to decreases of 85.2 percent and 73.8 percent, respectively. DOE 
estimates that industry must invest $1,846.4 million to comply with 
standards set at TSL 3. DOE estimates that 100 percent of the electric 
open (coil) element cooking top shipments, 5 percent of the electric 
smooth element cooking top shipments, 4 percent of the gas cooking top 
shipments, zero percent of the electric standard oven (freestanding and 
built-in) shipments, zero percent of the electric self-clean oven 
(freestanding) shipments, 2 percent of the electric self-clean (built-
in) shipments, 62 percent of gas standard oven (freestanding) 
shipments, 38 percent of the gas standard oven (built-in) shipments, 93 
percent of the gas self-clean oven (freestanding) shipments, and 77 
percent of the gas self-clean (built-in) shipments would already meet 
the efficiency levels required at TSL 3 in 2027.

[[Page 6893]]

    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for consumer 
conventional cooking products, the benefits of energy savings, emission 
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions 
reductions would be outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer 
benefits, the economic burden on many consumers (e.g., negative LCC 
savings across all product classes except gas cooking tops), and the 
significant impacts on manufacturers, including the large conversion 
costs and the significant reduction in INPV. A significant fraction of 
electric smooth element cooking top, electric oven, and gas standard 
oven consumers would experience a net LCC cost and negative LCC 
savings. The consumer NPV is negative at both 3 and 7 percent. The 
potential reduction in INPV could be as high as 85.2 percent. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not 
economically justified as a whole, and in particular for all product 
classes except for gas cooking tops. DOE notes that for gas cooking 
tops, the only product class with positive LCC savings, the same EL (2) 
is carried forward to TSL 2.
    DOE then considered TSL 2, which represents the baseline efficiency 
for electric open (coil) element cooking tops, efficiency level 1 for 
electric smooth element cooking tops, electric ovens, and gas ovens, 
and efficiency level 2 for gas cooking tops. TSL 2 would save an 
estimated 0.46 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. 
Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $0.65 billion using a 
discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.71 billion using a discount rate of 
3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 21.9 Mt of 
CO2, 2.2 thousand tons of SO2, 51.8 thousand tons 
of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 244.9 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.1 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 2 is $1.17 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 2 is $0.61 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $1.63 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $2.43 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $4.51 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings of $13 for electric 
smooth element cooking tops, $22 for gas cooking tops, $1 for electric 
ovens, and $1 for gas ovens. The simple payback period is 0.6 years for 
electric smooth element cooking tops, 5.0 years for gas cooking tops, 
1.7 years for freestanding electric ovens, 1.8 years for built-in/
slide-in electric ovens, 1.9 years for freestanding gas ovens, and 2.0 
years for built-in/slide-in gas ovens. The fraction of consumers that 
experience a net LCC cost is 0 percent for electric smooth element 
cooking tops, 18 percent for gas cooking tops, 0 percent for electric 
ovens, and 1 percent for gas ovens. At TSL 2, the proposed standard for 
electric open (coil) element cooking tops is at the baseline resulting 
in no LCC impact, an undefined PBP, and no consumers experiencing a net 
LCC cost.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$154.8 million to a decrease of $150.4 million, which correspond to 
decreases of 9.6 percent and 9.4 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that industry must invest $183.4 million to comply with standards set 
at TSL 2. DOE estimates that 100 percent of the electric open (coil) 
element cooking top shipments, 80 percent of the electric smooth 
element cooking top shipments, 4 percent of the gas cooking top 
shipments, 95 percent of the electric oven shipments, and 96 percent of 
the gas oven shipments would already meet or exceed the efficiency 
levels required at TSL 2 in 2027.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that at a standard set 
at TSL 2 for consumer conventional cooking products would be 
economically justified for all product classes. At this TSL, the 
average LCC savings for all conventional cooking product classes is 
positive. A shipment-weighted 4 percent of conventional cooking product 
consumers experience a net cost, with the highest in any single product 
class being 18 percent for gas cooking tops; the percent net cost for 
all other product classes is between 0 to 1 percent. The FFC national 
energy savings are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is 
positive using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, 
the benefits to consumers vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers. At 
TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the more 
conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 4 times higher than the 
maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard levels at 
TSL 2 are economically justified even without weighing the estimated 
monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions 
are included--representing $1.17 billion in climate benefits 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and 
$1.63 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $0.61 billion (using 
a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--the rationale becomes 
stronger still.
    As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL 
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 
EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative 
analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of 
energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically 
justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 70892, 70908. 
Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select the 
proposed energy conservation standards, DOE notes that TSL 2 has a 
lower percentage of consumers experiencing a net cost and a shorter 
payback period relative to TSL 3.
    Although DOE considered proposed amended standard levels for 
conventional cooking products by grouping the efficiency levels for 
each product class into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency 
levels in its analysis. For electric open (coil) element cooking tops, 
TSL 2 represents the baseline efficiency level, the only level 
considered in this product class in this SNOPR. For electric smooth 
element cooking tops, TSL 2 represents EL 1 which incorporates low-
standby-loss electronic controls. Setting a standard at EL 2 or EL 3 
would result in a larger percentage of consumers experiencing a net LCC 
cost and longer payback periods relative to EL 1. For gas cooking tops, 
TSL 2 represents EL 2, the maximum measured efficiency for products 
with at least one HIR burner, which is determined to be technologically 
feasible and economically justified. For electric and gas ovens, TSL 2 
corresponds to EL 1, which incorporates switch mode power supplies. A 
standard at EL 2 or EL 3 for electric ovens would result in a 
significantly higher percentage of consumers experiencing a net LCC 
cost and longer payback periods relative to EL 1. Similarly, for gas 
ovens, a

[[Page 6894]]

standard at EL 2 would result in a larger percentage of consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost and longer payback periods relative to EL 
1. The proposed standard levels at TSL 2 results in positive LCC 
savings for all product classes and a lower percentage of consumers 
experiencing a net cost to the point where DOE has tentatively 
concluded that they are economically justified, as discussed for TSL 2 
in the preceding paragraphs.
    Therefore, based on the above considerations, DOE proposes to adopt 
the energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products at TSL 2. The proposed amended energy conservation standards 
for consumer conventional cooking products, are shown in Table V.55 and 
Table V.56.

   Table V.55--Proposed Performance Energy Conservation Standards for
                        Conventional Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Maximum integrated  annual energy
            Product class                      consumption  (IAEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking   199 kWh/year.
 Tops.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops.  207 kWh/year.
Gas Cooking Tops.....................  1,204 kBtu/year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table V.56--Proposed Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards for
                           Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Product class                    Prescriptive standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard, Freestanding......  Shall not be equipped with a
                                        control system that uses linear
                                        power supply.
Electric Standard, Built-In/Slide-In
Electric Self-Clean, Freestanding
Electric Self-Clean, Built-In/Slide-
 In
Gas Standard, Freestanding...........  The control system for gas ovens
                                        shall:
Gas Standard, Built-In/Slide-In......    (1) Not be equipped with a
                                          constant burning pilot light;
                                          and
Gas Self-Clean, Freestanding.........    (2) Not be equipped with a
                                          linear power supply.
Gas Self-Clean, Built-In/Slide-In
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2021$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, 
minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized 
monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission 
reductions.
    Table V.57 shows the annualized values for consumer conventional 
cooking products under TSL 2, expressed in 2021$. The results under the 
primary estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent 
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the 
proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking products is $32.5 
million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated 
annual benefits are $100.8 million from reduced equipment operating 
costs, $67.0 million from GHG reductions, and $64.9 million from 
reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this case, the 
net benefit amounts to $200.3 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products is $32.2 million per year in increased equipment 
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $130.7 million in 
reduced operating costs, $67.0 million from GHG reductions, and $93.8 
million from reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In 
this case, the net benefit amounts to $259.2 million per year.

  Table V.57--Table V.57 Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for
                                 Consumer Conventional Cooking Products (TSL 2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                million 2021$/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Low-net-        High-net-
                                                                      Primary        benefits        benefits
                                                                     estimate        estimate        estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................           130.7           124.7           137.9
Climate Benefits *..............................................            67.0            65.3            68.4
Health Benefits **..............................................            93.8            91.4            95.6
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]...........................           291.5           281.4           301.8
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................            32.2            36.1            31.4
Net Monetized Benefits..........................................           259.2           245.2           270.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 6895]]

 
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................           100.8            96.5           105.8
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)...........................            67.0            65.3            68.4
Health Benefits **..............................................            64.9            63.4            66.0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]...........................           232.8           225.3           240.2
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....................            32.5            35.8            31.8
Net Monetized Benefits..........................................           200.3           189.5           208.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped
  in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in
  2027-2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices
  from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In
  addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline
  rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods
  used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that
  the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
  document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
  at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
  estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-
  GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal
  government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
  in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
  preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
  injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
  that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
  social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As
  reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized
  benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability
  to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health
  benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more
  details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan

    Manufacturers, including importers, must use product-specific 
certification templates to certify compliance to DOE. For consumer 
conventional cooking products, the certification template reflects the 
general certification requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.12 and the 
product-specific requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.23.
    In manufacturer interviews, multiple manufacturers expressed 
concern about the variability of cooking top test results and the 
potential impact on certifying compliance, but none provided 
information regarding how DOE should consider such variability in its 
analysis of potential energy conservation standards for cooking tops. 
DOE notes that as part of the August 2022 TP Final Rule, a sampling 
plan for cooking tops was established at 10 CFR 429.23, requiring that 
a sample of sufficient size be tested to ensure that any represented 
value of IAEC be greater than the mean of the sample or than the upper 
97.5 percent confidence limit of the true mean divided by 1.05. DOE is 
not proposing to amend the product-specific certification requirements 
for these products in this SNOPR because it does not have information 
regarding whether the confidence limit should be adjusted.
    DOE seeks comment and data to potentially re-evaluate the sampling 
plan for cooking tops in the context of any potential performance 
standards for these products.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), 
requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or 
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits 
justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are 
difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least 
burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, 
taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, 
the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among 
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net 
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health 
and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); 
(4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than 
specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities 
must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to 
direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage 
the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or 
providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE 
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in OMB has 
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from

[[Page 6896]]

technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the 
reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action is 
consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this proposed regulatory action constitutes a 
``significant regulatory action within the scope of section 3(f)(1)'' 
of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 
12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying 
analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the proposed 
regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a 
quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the 
underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an 
explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the 
identified potential alternatives. These assessments are summarized in 
this preamble and further detail can be found in the technical support 
document for this rulemaking.

B. 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 (energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has 
prepared the following IRFA for the products that are the subject of 
this rulemaking.
    For manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products, the 
SBA has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified 
as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the 
SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small 
entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR 
part 121.) The size standards are listed by North American Industry 
Classification System (``NAICS'') code and industry description and are 
available at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. 
Manufacturing of consumer conventional cooking products is classified 
under NAICS 335220, ``Major Household Appliance Manufacturing.'' The 
SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer for an entity to be 
considered as a small business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for consumer 
conventional cooking 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)) EPCA further provides that, not later 
than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or 
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination 
that standards for the 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)(1)) This rulemaking is 
in accordance with DOE's obligations under EPCA.
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    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)) EPCA 
additionally 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)) 
This rulemaking is also in accordance with the six-year review required 
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1).
3. Description of Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    DOE has recently conducted a focused inquiry into small business 
manufacturers of the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE used the 
SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small 
entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. The size 
standards are listed by NAICS code as well as by industry description 
and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-
standards. Manufacturing cooking tops is classified under NAICS 335220, 
``major household appliance manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold 
of 1,500 employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small 
business for this category. DOE used available public information to 
identify potential small manufacturers. DOE accessed the Compliance 
Certification Database \118\ (CCD), the Modernized Appliance Efficiency 
Database System \119\ (MAEDbS), and the National Resources Canada 
database \120\ (NRCan) to create a list of companies that import or 
otherwise manufacture the products covered by this SNOPR. Additionally, 
in response to the September 2016 SNOPR, Felix Storch provided a list 
of potential small businesses, not previously identified in the 
September 2016 SNOPR.\121\ (Felix Storch, No. 62 at p. 2) Once DOE 
created a list of potential manufacturers, DOE used market research 
tools to determine whether any companies met SBA's definition of a 
small entity--based on the total number of employees for each company 
including parent, subsidiary, and sister entities--and gather annual 
revenue estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification 
Management System, available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
    \119\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance 
Efficiency Database System, available at: 
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Login.aspx.
    \120\ Natural Resources Canada searchable product list, 
available at: oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/.
    \121\ Some of the companies Felix Storch identified, either had 
more than 1,500 employees, were completely foreign owned and 
operated, or did not sell any products covered by this rulemaking. 
Therefore, these companies do not meet SBA's definition of a small 
business and DOE did not include these companies in this IRFA. The 
remaining companies that do meet SBA's definition of a small 
business were included in this IRFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on DOE's analysis, DOE identified 34 companies potentially 
manufacturing consumer conventional cooking products covered by this 
rulemaking. DOE screened out companies that have more than 1,500 total 
employees or are entirely foreign owned and operated, and therefore do 
not meet SBA's requirements to be considered a small entity. Of the 34 
companies DOE identified as manufacturing consumer conventional cooking 
products sold in the United States, 15 were identified as potential 
small businesses.

[[Page 6897]]

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    DOE is proposing TSL 2 in this SNOPR. For all oven product classes, 
TSL 2 requires that the ovens not be equipped with a linear power 
supply. Based on DOE's shipment analysis more than 95 percent of ovens 
use a switch mode power supply and therefore are not equipped with a 
linear power supply. Based on DOE's shipment analysis, DOE assumed 
most, if not all, small businesses already use switch mode power 
supplies for the ovens they manufacturer. If any small businesses do 
still use linear power supplies in their ovens, there would be minimal 
conversion costs to these small businesses, as switch mode power 
supplies can be purchased as a separate component and would most likely 
not require a significant redesign to incorporate these switch mode 
power supplies. The remainder of this cost analysis focuses on the 
costs associated with complying with the proposed cooking top energy 
conservation standards.
    As stated in the previous section, DOE identified 15 potential 
small manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products. All 15 
of these small businesses manufacture cooking tops. These 15 small 
businesses can be grouped into two manufacturing groups: those that 
manufacture entry level cooking tops and those that manufacture premium 
cooking tops.
    Gas cooking top entry level products typically have thinner non-
continuous grates with only one burner above 14,000 BTUs (although some 
of these small businesses may offer a limited number of models with 
thicker continuous grates and more than one burner above 14,000 BTUs). 
Electric cooking top entry level products typically have electric coil 
element cooking tops (although a few small businesses may have up to 25 
percent of their electric ranges or electric cooking tops using 
electric smooth element cooking tops). These entry level small 
businesses usually compete on price in the market.
    Gas cooking top premium products typically have thicker continuous 
grates with multiple burners above 14,000 BTUs. Electric cooking top 
premium products use smooth element, typically with induction 
technology. Small businesses manufacturing premium products do not 
offer electric coil element cooking tops. Lastly, small businesses 
manufacturing premium products typically compete on the high quality 
and professional look and design of their products. These ranges or 
cooking tops are typically significantly more expensive than entry 
level products.
    Based on data from each small business's websites, DOE estimated 
the number of basic models each small business offers.

                        Table VI.2--Number of Unique Basic Models for Each Small Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Number of cooking top basic models  (by
                                                                                  product class)
             Manufacturer                  Small business type   -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Smooth        Open (coil)
                                                                        Gas           element         element
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business 1......................  Entry Level.............               4               4
Small Business 2......................  Entry Level.............              14                              13
Small Business 3......................  Entry Level.............               3               2               3
Small Business 4......................  Entry Level.............                              30
Small Business 5......................  Entry Level.............              24                              13
Small Business 6......................  Entry Level.............              27              13              28
Small Business 7......................  Premium.................              14
Small Business 8......................  Premium.................              42
Small Business 9......................  Premium.................              16
Small Business 10.....................  Premium.................              24               5
Small Business 11.....................  Premium.................              12
Small Business 12.....................  Premium.................              11
Small Business 13.....................  Premium.................              13
Small Business 14.....................  Premium.................              14               1
Small Business 15.....................  Premium.................              20               7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated the small business conversion costs and testing costs 
using the same methodology used to estimate the industry conversion 
costs, described in section IV.J.2.c of this document. There are two 
types of conversion costs that small businesses could incur due to the 
proposed standards: product conversion costs (including any testing 
costs) and capital conversion costs. Felix Storch commented in response 
to the September 2016 SNOPR that small manufacturers often lack the 
staff with expertise to fully understand the test procedures, 
complexities and nuances of the regulations. (Felix Storch, No. 62 at 
p. 2) Additionally, Felix Storch commented that small manufacturers pay 
substantially more and have longer lead times for energy testing. 
(Felix Storch, No. 62 at p. 3) In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE 
estimated a lower per unit testing costs for testing done in-house and 
a more costly third-party lab per unit testing cost. For this IRFA, DOE 
assumed all small businesses would incur the more costly third-party 
lab per unit testing cost, as most small businesses do not have in-
house testing capabilities or capacity to test all their products in 
accordance with the DOE test procedure.
    Product conversion costs are investments in R&D, testing, 
marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product 
designs comply with new and amended energy conservation standards. 
Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and 
equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities 
such that new compliant product designs can be fabricated and 
assembled. Manufacturers would have to incur testing costs for all 
cooking tops since DOE is proposing to establish a new energy 
conservation standard for cooking tops. Therefore, even products that 
meet the proposed energy conservation standard would incur testing 
costs to test these cooking tops to demonstrate compliance with the 
proposed energy conservation

[[Page 6898]]

standards. However, manufacturers would only incur R&D product 
conversion costs and capital conversion costs if they have products 
that do not meet the energy conservation standards.
    Based on the estimated model counts for each cooking top product 
class shown in Table VI.2 and the conversion cost and testing cost 
methodology used to calculate industry conversion costs, DOE estimated 
the conversion costs and testing costs for each small business, 
displayed in Table VI.3. DOE then used D&B Hoovers \122\ to estimate 
the annual revenue for each small business. Manufacturers will have 3 
years between publication of a final rule and compliance with the 
energy conservation standards. Therefore, DOE presents the estimated 
conversion costs and testing costs as a percent of the estimated 3 
years of annual revenue for each small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ See: app.avention.com. Last accessed on August 22, 2022.

                Table VI.3--Estimated Conversion Costs and Annual Revenue for Each Small Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Conversion
                                                                       Total                       costs as a %
             Manufacturer                  Small business type      conversion        Annual       of 3-years of
                                                                    and testing       revenue         annual
                                                                       costs                       revenue  (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business 1......................  Entry Level.............        $358,000        $950,000              13
Small Business 2......................  Entry Level.............         814,000       8,780,000               3
Small Business 3......................  Entry Level.............         945,400      58,630,000               1
Small Business 4......................  Entry Level.............         303,400      31,370,000              <1
Small Business 5......................  Entry Level.............         221,400      23,980,000              <1
Small Business 6......................  Entry Level.............         336,800     107,350,000              <1
Small Business 7......................  Premium.................       2,227,050       2,730,000              27
Small Business 8......................  Premium.................       4,021,200       5,000,000              27
Small Business 9......................  Premium.................       3,612,600       8,800,000              14
Small Business 10.....................  Premium.................       2,784,800       7,990,000              12
Small Business 11.....................  Premium.................       2,830,500       8,648,000              11
Small Business 12.....................  Premium.................       2,338,600      10,970,000               7
Small Business 13.....................  Premium.................       5,685,100      32,600,000               6
Small Business 14.....................  Premium.................       2,450,150      19,800,000               4
Small Business 15.....................  Premium.................       2,561,700      23,730,000               4
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Average Small Business................                                 2,099,380      23,421,867               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on Table VI.3 there are two premium small businesses 
manufacturers that could be significantly impacted by this proposed 
rulemaking, if finalized as proposed.
    DOE requests comment on its findings that there are 15 domestic 
small businesses that manufacture conventional cooking products and its 
estimate of the potential impacts on these small businesses. 
Additionally, DOE requests comment on the potential for any small 
businesses to exit the consumer conventional cooking products market in 
response to the proposed energy conservation standards.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small 
businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by 
TSL 2. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined 
energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels. DOE 
estimates that manufacturers, including small businesses, would have to 
spend approximately 43 percent less conversion costs at TSL 1 compared 
to TSL 2. While TSL 1 would reduce the impacts on small business 
manufacturers, it would come at the expense of a reduction in energy 
savings and consumer savings. TSL 1 achieves 39 percent lower energy 
savings compared to the energy savings at TSL 2. Additionally, TSL 1 
achieves 44 percent lower consumer NPV at 3 percent and 49 percent 
lower consumer NPV at 7 percent compared to the consumer NPV achieved 
at TSL 2.
    Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 2 
balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 2 with the potential 
burdens placed on consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers, 
including small business manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does not 
propose one of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, or the other 
policy alternatives examined as part of the regulatory impact analysis 
and included in chapter 17 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
    DOE seeks comment on the policy alternatives presented in the 
regulatory impact analysis and data that can be used to estimate the 
manufacturer response to Federal credits.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue 
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an 
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a 
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final 
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, 
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to 
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain 
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (``PRA''), a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information by a Federal agency unless that

[[Page 6899]]

collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control 
Number.
    OMB Control Number 1910-1400, Compliance Statement Energy/Water 
Conservation Standards for Appliances, is currently valid and assigned 
to the certification reporting requirements applicable to covered 
equipment, including consumer conventional cooking products.
    DOE's certification and compliance activities ensure accurate and 
comprehensive information about the energy and water use 
characteristics of covered products and covered equipment sold in the 
United States. Manufacturers of all covered products and covered 
equipment must submit a certification report before a basic model is 
distributed in commerce, annually thereafter, and if the basic model is 
redesigned in such a manner to increase the consumption or decrease the 
efficiency of the basic model such that the certified rating is no 
longer supported by the test data. Additionally, manufacturers must 
report when production of a basic model has ceased and is no longer 
offered for sale as part of the next annual certification report 
following such cessation. DOE requires the manufacturer of any covered 
product or covered equipment to establish, maintain, and retain the 
records of certification reports, of the underlying test data for all 
certification testing, and of any other testing conducted to satisfy 
the requirements of part 429, part 430, and/or part 431. Certification 
reports provide DOE and consumers with comprehensive, up-to date 
efficiency information and support effective enforcement.
    Revised certification data would be required for gas cooking tops 
and conventional gas ovens were this SNOPR to be finalized as proposed. 
New certification data would be required for electric cooking tops and 
conventional electric ovens were this SNOPR to be finalized as 
proposed. However, DOE is not proposing new or amended certification or 
reporting requirements for consumer conventional cooking products in 
this SNOPR. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to establish 
certification requirements and reporting for consumer conventional 
cooking products under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and 
equipment certification. DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number 
1910-1400 at that time, as necessary.
    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.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation 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 rulemakings that establish energy 
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment. 
10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this 
rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a 
rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer 
products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in 
categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances 
exist that require further environmental analysis, and it 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 rule.

E. 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 rule and has 
tentatively 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 
rule. 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 Executive Order 13132.

F. 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 rule meets the 
relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

G. 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. Pub. L. 104-4, section 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))

[[Page 6900]]

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 www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    Although this proposed rule does not contain a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million 
or more in any one year by the private sector. Such expenditures may 
include: (1) investment in research and development and in capital 
expenditures by consumer conventional cooking products manufacturers in 
the years between the final rule and the compliance date for the new 
standards and (2) incremental additional expenditures by consumers to 
purchase higher-efficiency consumer conventional cooking products, 
starting at the compliance date for the applicable standard.
    Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the 
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that 
accompanies the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content 
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector 
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this SNOPR and the TSD for this 
proposed rule respond to those requirements.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those 
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes 
an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an 
alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), 
this proposed rule would establish new and amended energy conservation 
standards for consumer conventional cooking products that are designed 
to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has 
determined to be both technologically feasible and economically 
justified, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE 
is presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for this proposed rule.

H. 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 rule 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.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in 
any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution.

J. 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). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving 
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this SNOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded 
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. 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 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 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.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which 
proposes new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer 
conventional cooking products, is not a significant energy action 
because the proposed standards are not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has 
it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 
DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on this proposed 
rule.

L. 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.'' 70 FR 2664, 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

[[Page 6901]]

a report describing that peer review.\123\ 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. Because available data, models, and technological 
understanding have changed since 2007, DOE has engaged with the 
National Academy of Sciences to review DOE's analytical methodologies 
to ascertain whether modifications are needed to improve the 
Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of evaluating the 
resulting report.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer 
Review Report'' is available at the following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed July 1, 2022).
    \124\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

    The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES 
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration 
information, participant instructions, and information about the 
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on 
DOE's website at 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 
document, 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 submit to 
[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.
    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. There shall not be discussion of proprietary 
information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters 
regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar and until the end 
of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments 
on the proceedings, as well as on any aspect of the rulemaking.
    The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE 
will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this 
rulemaking, 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 allow, 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. 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 previous procedures that may be needed for the 
proper conduct of the webinar.
    A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which 
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of 
this document and will be accessible on the DOE website. 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 rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. 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 www.regulations.gov. The 
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 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 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.

[[Page 6902]]

    DOE processes submissions made through 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 www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via 
email also will be posted to 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. 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 telefacsimiles (``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 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. 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 requests comment on its proposed definition for portable 
conventional cooking top and DOE's proposal to include portable 
conventional cooking tops in the existing product classes. DOE also 
seeks data and information on its initial determination not to 
differentiate conventional cooking tops on the basis of portability 
when considering product classes for this SNOPR analysis.
    (2) DOE seeks comment on the impacts of downdraft venting systems 
on energy consumption and associated data about such impacts. DOE 
further requests comment on its proposal to not include the energy 
consumption of any downdraft venting system in the energy conservation 
standards for conventional cooking tops.
    (3) DOE requests comment on its proposed tested configuration and 
determination of representative IAEC for single-zone non-portable 
cooking tops.
    (4) DOE requests comment on its proposal to not define ``basic 
model'' with respect to cooking products or cooking tops, and on 
possible definitions for ``basic model'' with respect to cooking 
products or cooking tops that could be used if DOE were to determine 
such a definition is necessary.
    (5) DOE welcomes data on the consumer usage patterns of pyrolytic 
versus non-pyrolytic self-cleaning functions in conventional ovens, and 
requests comment on its preliminary determination that self-cleaning 
technologies do not warrant separate product class considerations.
    (6) DOE seeks comment on the product classes evaluated in this 
SNOPR.
    (7) DOE seeks comment on any existing technologies that improve the 
efficiency of electric open (coil) element cooking tops.
    (8) DOE requests information on the potential energy savings 
associated with intermittent pilot ignition systems.
    (9) DOE requests comment on the magnitude of potential energy 
savings that could result from the use of a reduced air gap as a 
technology option.
    (10) DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional 
electric cooking tops and whether any additional technology options 
should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in 
this SNOPR.
    (11) DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional 
gas cooking tops and whether any additional technology options should 
be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in this 
SNOPR.
    (12) DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional 
ovens and whether any additional technology options should be screened 
out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in this SNOPR.
    (13) DOE seeks comment on the retained design options for consumer 
conventional cooking products.
    (14) DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the 
proposed baseline efficiency levels for conventional cooking tops.
    (15) DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the 
proposed incremental efficiency levels for electric cooking tops.
    (16) DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the 
proposed incremental efficiency levels for gas cooking tops.
    (17) DOE seeks comment on the definitions of the proposed 
efficiency level for conventional ovens.
    (18) DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the 
estimated energy use of each proposed efficiency level for conventional 
ovens.
    (19) DOE seeks comment on the manufacturer production costs for 
consumer conventional cooking products used in this analysis.
    (20) DOE requests comment on data and information on how the 
pandemic has changed consumer cooking behavior and product usage.
    (21) DOE seeks feedback and comment on its estimate for repair 
costs for consumer conventional cooking products.
    (22) DOE requests comment and additional data on its estimates for 
the lifetime distribution.
    (23) DOE requests comment and feedback on its efficiency assignment 
in the LCC analysis.
    (24) DOE seeks comment and feedback on its estimate for the no-new-
standards case efficiency distribution.
    (25) DOE seeks comment on the distribution between electric and gas 
cooking products over the shipments analysis period and the potential 
for

[[Page 6903]]

fuel switching between electric and gas cooking products. Specifically, 
DOE requests data on existing policy incentives for consumers to switch 
fuels and data that indicates the number of consumers switching fuel 
types between electric and gas cooking products.
    (26) DOE requests data on the market size and typical selling price 
of units sold through the second-hand market for cooking products.
    (27) DOE welcomes input on the effect of new and amended standards 
on impacts across products within the same fuel class and equipment 
type.
    (28) DOE seeks comment on the general approach to its shipments 
methodology.
    (29) DOE seeks feedback on its assumption of no rebound effect 
associated with the use of more efficient conventional cooking products 
as a result of a standard.
    (30) DOE requests comment on whether additional consumer subgroups, 
including any disaggregation of the subgroups analyzed in this SNOPR, 
may be disproportionately affected by a new or amended national 
standard and warrant additional analysis in the final rule.
    (31) DOE requests comment on the use of 9.1 percent as an 
appropriate real discount rate for consumer conventional cooking 
product manufacturers.
    (32) DOE seeks comment on any health impacts to consumers, 
environmental impacts, or general public health and welfare impacts 
(including the distribution of such impacts across sensitive 
populations) of its proposals in this SNOPR on on-site emissions from 
gas cooking products of methane, carbon dioxide, particulate matter, 
nitrogen dioxide, or other hazardous air emissions. DOE also seeks 
comment on whether manufacturers are instituting design approaches, 
control strategies, or other measures to mitigate methane or other 
emissions from incomplete combustion and leakage.
    (33) DOE requests comment on the estimated potential domestic 
employment impacts on consumer conventional cooking product 
manufacturers presented in this SNOPR.
    (34) DOE requests comment on the potential manufacturing capacity 
constraints placed on consumer conventional cooking product 
manufacturers at the TSLs presented in this SNOPR.
    (35) DOE requests comment on the potential impacts on commercial-
style manufacturers at the TSLs presented in this SNOPR.
    (36) DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative 
regulatory burden on manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking 
products associated with multiple DOE standards or product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies.
    (37) DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive 
impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, 
stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding 
these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for information to 
send comments to DOJ.
    (38) DOE seeks comment on any impacts of its proposals in this 
SNOPR on indoor air pollutants released by gas cooking products, as 
well as any other design approaches, control strategies, or other 
measures to mitigate these emissions.
    (39) DOE welcomes data submissions and comments that will provide 
for a fuller assessment of the potential impact of energy conservation 
standards on consumer choice and how to quantify this impact in its 
regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
    (40) DOE seeks comment and data to potentially re-evaluate the 
sampling plan for cooking tops in the context of any potential 
performance standards for these products.
    (41) DOE requests comment on its findings that there are 15 
domestic small businesses that manufacture conventional cooking 
products and its estimate of the potential impacts on these small 
businesses. Additionally, DOE requests comment on the potential for any 
small businesses to exit the consumer conventional cooking products 
market in response to the proposed energy conservation standards.
    (42) DOE seeks comment on the policy alternatives presented in the 
regulatory impact analysis and data that can be used to estimate the 
manufacturer response to Federal credits.
    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the 
conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in 
this document.

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public 
meeting.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Small businesses.

10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 
23, 2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting 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 January 10, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
parts 429 and 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Amend Sec.  429.23 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.23   Cooking products.

    (a) Determination of represented values. Manufacturers must 
determine the represented values, which include the certified ratings, 
for each basic model of cooking product by testing, in conjunction with 
the applicable sampling provisions.
    (1) Sampling plan for selection of units for testing. (i) The 
requirements of

[[Page 6904]]

Sec.  429.11 are applicable to cooking products; and
    (ii) For each basic model of cooking product, a sample of 
sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that 
any represented value of estimated annual operating cost, standby mode 
power consumption, off mode power consumption, annual energy 
consumption, integrated annual energy consumption, or other measure of 
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
    (A) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE23.000
    
    and x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and 
xi is the ith sample; Or,
    (B) The upper 97\1/2\ percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true 
mean divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE23.001

    And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is 
the number of samples; and t0.975 is the t statistic for a 
97.5% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from 
appendix A).
    (2) Product-specific provisions for determination of represented 
values. (i) Non-portable conventional cooking tops with a single 
cooking zone.
    (A) Representations for a basic model must be based on the tested 
configuration. For the purpose of this paragraph (a)(2)(i), the 
``tested configuration'' means:
    (1) The non-portable conventional cooking top unit containing the 
single cooking zone, and
    (2) If commercially available from the same manufacturer, the non-
portable conventional cooking top unit that has similar design 
characteristics (e.g., construction materials, user interface) as the 
non-portable conventional cooking top containing the single cooking 
zone, but that contains two cooking zones that are within the same 
product class and use the same heating technology (i.e., gas flame, 
electric resistive heating, or electric inductive heating) and energy 
source (e.g., voltage, gas type) as the non-portable conventional 
cooking top containing the single cooking zone. If more than one such 
comparable unit with two cooking zones is commercially available from 
the same manufacturer, the least energy consumptive of those units with 
two cooking zones shall be included in the tested configuration. If no 
such comparable unit with two cooking zones is commercially available 
from the same manufacturer, the tested configuration shall be only the 
non-portable conventional cooking top unit containing the single 
cooking zone.
    (B) Determination of the represented value of integrated annual 
energy consumption (IAEC) of the tested configuration of a non-portable 
conventional cooking top with a single cooking zone.
    (1) If the tested configuration includes a comparable non-portable 
conventional cooking top unit containing two cooking zones, the 
represented value of IAEC is calculated as follows:

IAEC = \1/3\ x IAECsingle x \2/3\ x IAECdouble

Where:

IAECsingle is the IAEC for the non-portable conventional 
cooking top unit containing the single cooking zone included in the 
tested configuration as determined in Sec.  430.23(i)(2) of this 
chapter; and
IAECdouble is the IAEC for the comparable non-portable 
conventional cooking top unit containing two cooking zones included 
in the tested configuration as determined in Sec.  430.23(i)(2) of 
this chapter.

    (2) If the tested configuration includes only the non-portable 
conventional cooking top unit containing the single cooking zone, the 
represented value of IAEC is equal to that cooking top's IAEC as 
determined in Sec.  430.23(i)(2) of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
3. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
4. Amend Sec.  430.2 by adding in alphabetical order, the definition of 
``Portable conventional cooking top'' to read as follows:


Sec.  430.2   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Portable conventional cooking top means a conventional cooking top 
designed to be moved place to place.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  430.32 by revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and their 
compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (j) Cooking Products. (1) The control system of a conventional oven 
shall:
    (i) Not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light for gas 
ovens manufactured on or after April 9, 2012; and
    (ii) Not be equipped with a linear power supply for electric and 
gas ovens manufactured on or after [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (2) Conventional cooking tops manufactured on or after [DATE 3 
YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 
shall have an integrated annual energy consumption, excluding any 
downdraft venting system energy consumption, no greater than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum
                                                            integrated
                                                           annual energy
                      Product class                         consumption
                                                           (IAEC) (kWh/
                                                               year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Electric Cooking Tops--Open (Coil) Elements.........             199
(ii) Electric Cooking Tops--Smooth Elements.............             207
(iii) Gas Cooking Tops..................................           1,204
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-00610 Filed 1-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P