[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11548-11563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02007]
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 11548]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005]
RIN 1904-AF57
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. In this notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR''), the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes new and
amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products identical to those set forth in a direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. If DOE receives
adverse comment and determines that such comment may provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule, DOE will
publish a notice of withdrawal and will proceed with this proposed
rule.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
NOPR no later than June 3, 2024. 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 15, 2024.
ADDRESSES: See section IV of this document, ``Public Participation,''
for details. If DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting
to allow for additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish
notice of any meeting in the Federal Register.
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:
(1) Email: [email protected]. Include the
docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005 in the subject line of the message.
(2) 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.
(3) 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 IV 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 IV 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 Antitrust 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: (240) 751-5157. 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
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. Current Test Procedure
3. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Conventional
Cooking Products
4. The Joint Agreement
III. Proposed Standards
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer
Conventional Cooking Product Standards
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. 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 on 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
VI. 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\
[[Page 11549]]
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 proposed rule. (42
U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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, among other things, 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 significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4), DOE is proposing this rule establishing and amending the
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products and is concurrently issuing a direct final rule elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register. DOE will proceed with this NOPR
only if it determines it must withdraw the direct final rule pursuant
to the criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). The new and amended
standard levels in the proposed rule and direct final rule were
proposed in a letter submitted to DOE jointly by groups representing
manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and
a utility. This letter, titled ``Energy Efficiency Agreement of 2023''
(hereafter, the ``Joint Agreement'' \3\), recommends specific energy
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products that,
in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42
U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE subsequently received letters of support from
States including New York, California, and Massachusetts \4\ and
utilities including San Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California
Edison \5\ advocating for the adoption of the recommended standards. As
discussed in more detail in the accompanying direct final rule and in
accordance with the provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has
determined that the recommendations contained in the Joint Agreement
comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12811.
\4\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12812.
\5\ This document is available in the docket at:
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12813.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes new and amended energy conservation
standards that are performance-based standards for conventional cooking
tops and prescriptive standards for conventional ovens. The standards
for conventional cooking tops are expressed in terms of integrated
annual energy consumption (``IAEC''), measured in thousand British
thermal units per year (``kBtu/year'') for gas cooking tops and in
kilowatt-hours per year (``kWh/year'') for electric cooking tops, as
measured according to DOE's current conventional cooking top test
procedure codified at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix I1 (``appendix I1'').
Table I.1 presents the proposed new and amended standards for
conventional cooking tops. Table I.2 presents the proposed new and
amended standards for conventional ovens. These proposed new and
amended standards would exclude portable cooking products. The proposed
standards are the same as those recommended by the Joint Agreement.
These standards apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and Table I.2
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on
January 31, 2028, as recommended in the Joint Agreement.
Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Performance Standards for
Conventional Cooking Tops
[Compliance starting January 31, 2028]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum integrated annual energy
Product class consumption (IAEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking No standard.
Tops.
Electric Smooth Element Standalone 207 kWh/year.
Cooking Tops.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top 207 kWh/year.
Component of Combined Cooking
Products.
Gas Standalone Cooking Tops.......... 1,770 kBtu/year.
Gas Cooking Top Component of Combined 1,770 kBtu/year.
Cooking Products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I.2--Proposed Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards for
Conventional Ovens
[Compliance starting January 31, 2028]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class New and amended standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Ovens................... Shall not be equipped with a control
system that uses linear power
supply.*
Gas Ovens........................ The control system for gas ovens
shall:
(1) Not be equipped with a constant
burning pilot light; and
(2) Not be equipped with a linear
power supply.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 the
direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
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
[[Page 11550]]
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 directed 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)).
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 in limited instances 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(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 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 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 determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE
may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
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 manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the
standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable,
water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
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, as codified, 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, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4))
EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy
conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a
type (or class) of product must specify a different standard level for
a type or class of products 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 considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.) Any rule
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(2)).
Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, final rules for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, are 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
[[Page 11551]]
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, as do the standards proposed in
this NOPR.
Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE
authority to directly issue a final rule (i.e., a ``direct final
rule'') establishing an energy conservation standard upon receipt of a
statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates),
as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with
respect to an energy or water conservation standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also
determine whether a jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or
water conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.
A NOPR that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must
be published simultaneously with the direct final rule, and DOE must
provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Based on the comments received during
this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE
will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if (1) one
or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those
comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the
direct final rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C))
Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner. (Id.) After
withdrawing a direct final rule, DOE must proceed with the NOPR
published simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the
Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn.
(Id.)
DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final
rule authority. In a final rule amending the Department's ``Procedures,
Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products'' at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A, DOE noted that it may issue standards
recommended by interested persons that are fairly representative of
relative points of view as a direct final rule when the recommended
standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But
the direct final rule provision in EPCA, under which this proposed rule
is issued, does not impose additional requirements applicable to other
standards rulemakings, which is consistent with the unique
circumstances of rules issued through consensus agreements under DOE's
direct final rule authority. Id. DOE's discretion remains bounded by
its statutory mandate to adopt a standard that results in the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified--a requirement found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Id.
As such, DOE's review and analysis of the Joint Agreement is limited to
whether the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o).
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 prohibit constant burning
pilot lights for all gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking products
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. Current Test Procedure
On August 22, 2022, DOE published a test procedure 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. The test procedure
adopted the latest version of the relevant industry standard published
by the International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC''), Standard
60350-2 (Edition 2.0 2017-08), ``Household electric cooking
appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance'' (``IEC
60350-2:2021''), 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.
The standard levels proposed in this NOPR are based on the IAEC metric
as measured according to appendix I1.
3. 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 (``September 1998 Final Rule''), 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 pilot lights for gas cooking products without
an electrical supply cord was economically justified, DOE did not
include amended standards for gas cooking products in the September
1998 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 pilot lights for all gas cooking
products (i.e., gas cooking products with or without an electrical
supply cord) manufactured on or after April 9, 2012. DOE decided to not
adopt energy conservation standards pertaining to the cooking
efficiency of conventional electric cooking products because it
determined that such standards would not be technologically feasible
and economically justified at that time. 74 FR 16040, 16085.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As part of the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE decided not to
adopt energy conservation standards pertaining to the cooking
efficiency of microwave ovens. DOE has since published a final rule
on June 20, 2023, adopting amended energy conservation standards for
microwave oven standby mode and off mode. 88 FR 39912. DOE is not
considering energy conservation standards for microwave ovens as
part of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The Joint Agreement
On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (i.e., the
Joint Agreement) recommending standards for consumer conventional
cooking
[[Page 11552]]
products that was submitted by groups representing manufacturers,
energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.\7\
In addition to the recommended standards for consumer conventional
cooking products, the Joint Agreement also included separate
recommendations for several other covered products.\8\ And, while
acknowledging that DOE may implement these recommendations in separate
rulemakings, the Joint Agreement also stated that the recommendations
were recommended as a complete package and each recommendation is
contingent upon the other parts being implemented. DOE understands this
to mean that the Joint Agreement is contingent upon DOE initiating
rulemaking processes to adopt all of the recommended standards in the
agreement. That is distinguished from an agreement where issuance of an
amended energy conservation standard for a covered product is
contingent on issuance of amended energy conservation standards for the
other covered products. If the Joint Agreement were so construed, it
would conflict with the anti-backsliding provision in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1), because it would imply the possibility that, if DOE were
unable to issue an amended standard for a certain product, it would
have to withdraw a previously issued standard for one of the other
products. The anti-backsliding provision, however, prevents DOE from
withdrawing or amending an energy conservation standard to be less
stringent. As a result, DOE will be proceeding with individual
rulemakings that will evaluate each of the recommended standards
separately under the applicable statutory criteria. The Joint Agreement
recommends new and amended standard levels for consumer conventional
cooking products as presented in Table II.1. (Joint Agreement, No.
12811 at p. 10) Details of the Joint Agreement recommendations for
other products are provided in the Joint Agreement posted in the
docket.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include the
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM''), American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water
Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer
Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that make the affected
products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB;
Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances
Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.;
Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier
Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr
USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances
Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of America; Perlick
Corporation; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Sharp Electronics
Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby
Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool
Corporation.
\8\ The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for 6 covered
products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers;
clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; cooking products; and
miscellaneous refrigeration products.
\9\ The Joint Agreement is available in the docket at
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12811.
Table II.1--Recommended New and Amended Energy Conservation Standards
for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class Standard level Compliance date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Coil................... No standard....... January 31, 2028.
Propose new class: Electric 207 kWh/year......
smooth Cooktop *.
Propose new Class: Electric 207 kWh/year......
smooth range *.
Propose new class: Gas cooktop * 1,770 kBtu/year...
Propose new class: Gas range *.. 1,770 kBtu/year...
Ovens (Electric and Gas) *...... Electric: Baseline
+ SMPS.
Gas: Baseline +
SMPS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Excludes portable cooking products.
The Joint Agreement also stated that the signatories would propose
separately to DOE the inclusion of an alternative simmer calculation in
the DOE test procedure for use in certification. (Id.) The Joint
Agreement specified that, for enforcement purposes, DOE would rely on
the full simmer test, rather than the alternative simmer calculation
(which would be similar to the triangulation method used for
refrigerator/freezers at 10 CFR 429.134(b)(2)). (Id.) DOE received a
comment on the cooking top test procedure from the Joint Agreement
signatories \10\ on January 5, 2024, and will address the issues raised
in the comment in a separate test procedure rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In the test procedure comment letter, only the following
Joint Agreement signatories were included: AHAM, Appliance Standards
Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice,
National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company. Furthermore, AHAM noted that it represents the
following companies who manufacture consumer conventional cooking
products are members of the AHAM Major Appliance Division: Arcelik
A.S.; Beko US, Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances
Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; De'Longhi America, Inc.;
Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber S.p.A.;
FOTILE America, LLC; GE Appliances, a Haier Company; Gradient, Inc.;
Hisense USA Corporation; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; Liebherr USA,
Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation of
America; Samsung Electronics America Inc.; Sharp Electronics
Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; Viking Range, LLC;
and Whirlpool Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has evaluated the Joint Agreement and believes that it meets
the EPCA requirements for issuance of a direct final rule. As a result,
DOE published a direct final rule establishing energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking products elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse comments that
may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal and withdraws the direct
final rule, DOE will consider those comments and any other comments
received in determining how to proceed with this proposed rule.
For further background information on these proposed standards and
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. That document and the
accompanying technical support document (``TSD'') contain an in-depth
discussion of the analyses conducted in evaluating the Joint Agreement,
the methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses, and the
analytical results.
When the Joint Agreement was submitted, DOE was conducting a
rulemaking to consider amending the standards for consumer conventional
cooking products. As part of that process, DOE published a supplemental
[[Page 11553]]
notice of proposed rulemaking (``SNOPR'') and announced a public
meeting on February 1, 2023, (``February 2023 SNOPR'') seeking comment
on its proposed new and amended standards for consumer conventional
cooking products to inform its decision consistent with its obligations
under EPCA and the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''). 88 FR 6818.
The February 2023 SNOPR proposed new and amended standards for consumer
conventional cooking products, consisting of maximum IAEC levels for
electric and gas cooking tops and design requirements for conventional
ovens. Id. Subsequently, on February 28, 2023, DOE published a
notification of data availability (``NODA'') providing additional
information to clarify the February 2023 SNOPR analysis for gas cooking
tops. 88 FR 6818. Finally, on August 2, 2023, DOE published a second
NODA updating its analysis for gas cooking tops based on the
stakeholder data it received in response to the February 2023 SNOPR. 88
FR 50810. The February 2023 SNOPR TSD is available at:
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-0090.
III. Proposed Standards
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))
DOE considered the impacts of new and amended standards for
consumer conventional cooking products at each trial standard level
(``TSL''), beginning with the maximum technologically feasible (``max-
tech'') 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 as 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; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or
aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient 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; (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). 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 forgo 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 manufacturer impact analysis (``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 direct final rule TSD \11\ available in
the docket for this rulemaking. 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document.
\12\ 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.\13\ DOE
welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the potential impact of
energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to quantify
this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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 November 2, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer Conventional
Cooking Product Standards
Table III.1 and Table III.2 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 the new and amended
standards (2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1, i.e., the ``Recommended
TSL'' for consumer conventional cooking products, and 2028-2057 for TSL
1). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions
reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') results. DOE is
presenting monetized benefits of greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions
reductions in accordance with the applicable Executive Orders and would
[[Page 11554]]
reach the same conclusion presented in this NOPR 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 the direct final
rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
Table III.1--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....................................................... 0.22 0.66 1.52
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction:
CO2 (million metric tons)................................... 3.99 21.16 36.69
CH4 (thousand tons)......................................... 34.70 235.42 366.22
N2O (thousand tons)......................................... 0.04 0.10 0.25
SO2 (thousand tons)......................................... 1.15 2.26 6.96
NOX (thousand tons)......................................... 7.61 51.14 80.03
Hg (tons)................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.05
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion
2022$):
Consumer Operating Cost Savings............................. 1.63 4.30 3.97
Climate Benefits *.......................................... 0.22 1.28 2.16
Health Benefits **.......................................... 0.42 2.15 3.85
Total Benefits [dagger]................................. 2.27 7.73 9.99
-----------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]................. 0.07 3.96 47.86
-----------------------------------------------
Consumer Net Benefits....................................... 1.56 0.34 (43.89)
Total Net Benefits...................................... 2.20 3.77 (37.87)
-----------------------------------------------
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion
2022$):
Consumer Operating Cost Savings............................. 0.69 1.90 0.86
Climate Benefits *.......................................... 0.22 1.28 2.16
Health Benefits **.......................................... 0.16 0.87 1.56
Total Benefits [dagger]................................. 1.07 4.04 4.58
-----------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger] 0.04 2.30 27.21
-----------------------------------------------
Consumer Net Benefits....................................... 0.65 (0.40) (26.34)
Total Net Benefits...................................... 1.03 1.74 (22.62)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped
during the period 2027-2056 for all TSLs except for TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) and 2028-2057 for TSL 1. These
results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped during the period 2027-
2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 and 2057 from the products shipped during the period 2028-2057 for TSL 1.
* 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 DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG
point estimate. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim 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.
** 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 the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register for more details.
[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 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 sets of SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
Table III.2--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 2022$) (No-new-standards case INPV = 1,457-1,458 1,042-1,078 (302)-(25)
1,601).....................................................
Industry NPV (% change)..................................... (9.0)-(9.0) (34.9)-(32.6) (118.9)-(101.6
)
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2022$):
Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops............. 62.80 8.54 (638.87)
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top as a Component of a 62.80 8.54 (638.87)
Combined Cooking Product...................................
Gas Standalone Cooking Tops................................. 3.09 (1.03) (1.03)
Gas Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined Cooking Product 3.09 (1.03) (1.03)
Electric Ovens.............................................. 16.23 (39.55) (24.87)
Gas Ovens................................................... 15.17 (24.16) (24.16)
Shipment-Weighted Average \**\.............................. 23.34 (17.72) (153.51)
Consumer Simple Payback Period (years):
Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops............. 0.6 4.0 170.4
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top as a Component of a 0.6 4.0 170.4
Combined Cooking Product...................................
[[Page 11555]]
Gas Standalone Cooking Tops................................. 6.6 10.5 10.5
Gas Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined Cooking Product 6.6 10.5 10.5
Electric Ovens.............................................. 2.1 25.4 20.8
Gas Ovens................................................... 1.9 18.0 18.0
Shipment-Weighted Average \**\.............................. 2.7 16.1 50.7
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost:
Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops............. 0 52 100
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top as a Component of a 0 52 100
Combined Cooking Product...................................
Gas Standalone Cooking Tops................................. 1 38 38
Gas Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined Cooking Product 1 38 38
Electric Ovens.............................................. 0 27 81
Gas Ovens................................................... 0 21 21
Shipment-Weighted Average \**\.............................. 0 34 64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of
2028.
** Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2022.
DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels. TSL 3 would save an estimated 1.52 quads of energy,
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the net present value
(``NPV'') of consumer benefit would decrease compared to the no-new-
standards case by $26.34 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent,
and $43.89 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 36.69 million
metric tons (``Mt'') \14\ of carbon dioxide (``CO2''), 6.96
thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (``SO2''), 80.03 thousand
tons of nitrogen oxides (``NOX''), 0.05 tons of mercury
(``Hg''),\15\ 366.22 thousand tons of methane (``CH4''), and
0.25 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (``N2O''). The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average social cost of GHG (``SC-GHG'') at a 3-
percent discount rate) at TSL 3 is $2.2 billion. The estimated monetary
value of the health benefits from reduced SO2 and
NOX emissions at TSL 3 is $1.6 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate and $3.9 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
\15\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023''). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent
possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022,
including the Inflation Reduction Act. See section IV.K of the
direct final rule published elsewhere in in this issue of the
Federal Register for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that
effect air pollutant emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $22.6
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
$37.9 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 life-cycle costs (``LCC'') impact is a loss
of $638.87 for electric smooth element cooking top product classes, a
loss $1.03 for gas cooking top product classes, a shipments-weighted
average loss of $24.87 for electric ovens, and a shipment-weighted
average loss of $24.16 for gas ovens. The simple payback period is
170.5 years for electric smooth element cooking top product classes,
10.5 years for gas cooking top product classes, 20.8 years for electric
ovens, and 18.0 years for gas ovens. The fraction of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost is 100 percent for electric smooth element
cooking top product classes, 38 percent for gas cooking top product
classes, 81 percent for electric ovens, and 21 percent for gas ovens.
At TSL 3, the projected change in industry net present value
(``INPV'') ranges from a decrease of $1,903 million to a decrease of
$1,626 million, which corresponds to decreases of 118.9 percent and
101.6 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest
$2,069.2 million to comply with standards set at TSL 3. DOE estimates
that less than 1 percent of electric smooth element cooking top
(standalone and component of a combined cooking product) shipments, 41
percent of gas cooking top (standalone and component of a combined
cooking product) shipments, zero percent of electric standard oven
(freestanding and built-in) shipments, zero percent of electric self-
clean oven (freestanding) shipments, 2 percent of electric self-clean
oven (built-in) shipments, 62 percent of gas standard oven
(freestanding) shipments, 38 percent of gas standard oven (built-in)
shipments, 93 percent of gas self-clean oven (freestanding) shipments,
and 77 percent of gas self-clean oven (built-in) shipments would
already meet the efficiency levels required at TSL 3 in 2027.
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), and the significant impacts on
manufacturers, including the large conversion costs and the significant
reduction in INPV. A significant fraction of consumers across all
product classes 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 118.9 percent.
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not
economically justified.
DOE next considered TSL 2, which represents EL 2 for all product
classes. TSL 2 would save an estimated 0.66 quads of energy, an amount
DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefit
would decrease compared to the no-new-
[[Page 11556]]
standards case by $0.40 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
increase compared to the no-new-standards case by $0.34 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 21.16 Mt of
CO2, 2.26 thousand tons of SO2, 51.14 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 235.42 thousand tons of
CH4, and 0.10 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 $1.3 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 2 is $0.9 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $2.1 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 $1.7
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $3.8 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 $8.54 for electric
smooth element cooking top product classes, a loss of $1.03 for gas
cooking top product classes, a shipments-weighted average loss of
$39.55 for electric ovens, and a shipment-weighted average loss of
$24.16 for gas ovens. The simple payback period is 4.0 years for
electric smooth element cooking top product classes, 10.5 years for gas
cooking top product classes, 25.4 years for electric ovens, and 18.0
years for gas ovens. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC
cost is 52 percent for electric smooth element cooking top product
classes, 38 percent for gas cooking top product classes, 27 percent for
electric ovens, and 21 percent for gas ovens.
At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$559 million to a decrease of $522 million, which corresponds to
decreases of 34.9 percent and 32.6 percent, respectively. DOE estimates
that industry must invest $576.5 million to comply with standards set
at TSL 2. DOE estimates that approximately 15 percent of electric
smooth element cooking top (standalone and component of a combined
cooking product) shipments, 41 percent of gas cooking top (standalone
and component of a combined cooking product) shipments, 38 percent of
electric standard oven (freestanding) shipments, 30 percent of electric
standard oven (built-in) shipments, 77 percent of electric self-clean
oven (freestanding) shipments, 88 percent of electric self-clean ovens
(built-in) shipments, 62 percent of gas standard oven (freestanding)
shipments, 38 percent of gas standard oven (built-in), 93 percent of
gas self-clean oven (freestanding) shipments, and 77 percent of gas
self-clean oven (built-in) shipments would already meet or exceed the
efficiency levels required at TSL 2 in 2027.
The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 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, and the significant
impacts on manufacturers, including the large conversion costs and the
significant reduction in INPV. At TSL 2, consumers, on average, would
experience a negative LCC savings for gas cooking tops, electric ovens,
and gas ovens. For electric cooking tops, 52 percent of consumers would
experience a net cost. At TSL 2, the simple payback period for electric
and gas ovens would exceed the average product lifetime. Additionally,
the consumer NPV is negative at 7 percent. The potential reduction in
INPV could be as high as 34.9 percent. Consequently, the Secretary has
tentatively concluded that TSL 2 is not economically justified.
DOE next considered TSL 1, which corresponds to the TSL recommended
in the Joint Agreement (the ``Recommended TSL'') and which represents
EL 1 for all product classes. The Recommended TSL would save an
estimated 0.22 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant.
Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $0.65
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.56 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at the Recommended TSL are 3.99
Mt of CO2, 1.15 thousand tons of SO2, 7.61
thousand tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 34.70 thousand tons
of CH4, and 0.04 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 the Recommended TSL is $0.22 billion. The estimated monetary
value of the health benefits from reduced SO2 and
NOX emissions at the Recommended TSL is $0.16 billion using
a 7-percent discount rate and $0.42 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 the Recommended
TSL is $1.03 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits
and costs, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended TSL is $2.20
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 the Recommended TSL, the average LCC impact is a savings of
$62.80 for electric smooth element cooking top product classes, a
savings of $3.09 for gas cooking top product classes, a shipments-
weighted average savings of $16.23 for electric ovens, and a shipment-
weighted average savings of $15.17 for gas ovens. The simple payback
period is 0.6 years for electric smooth element cooking top product
classes, 6.6 years for gas cooking top product classes, 2.1 years for
electric ovens, and 1.9 years for gas ovens. The fraction of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost is 0 percent for electric smooth element
cooking top product classes, 1 percent for gas cooking top product
classes, 0 percent for electric ovens, and 0 percent for gas ovens.
At the Recommended TSL, the projected change in INPV ranges from a
decrease of $144 million to a decrease of $143 million, which
corresponds to decreases of 9.0 percent and 9.0 percent, respectively.
DOE estimates that industry must invest $66.7 million to comply with
standards set at the Recommended TSL. DOE estimates that approximately
77 percent of electric smooth element cooking top (standalone and
component of a combined cooking product) shipments, 97 percent of gas
cooking top (standalone and component of a combined cooking product)
shipments, 95 percent of electric standard oven (freestanding and
built-in) shipments, 95 percent of electric self-clean oven
(freestanding and built-in) shipments, 96 percent of gas standard oven
(freestanding and built-in) shipments, and 96 percent of gas self-clean
oven (freestanding and built-in) shipments would already meet or exceed
the efficiency levels required at the Recommended TSL in 2028.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that
[[Page 11557]]
at a standard set at the Recommended TSL for consumer conventional
cooking products would be economically justified. At this TSL, the
average LCC savings for all consumer conventional cooking product
consumers is positive. A shipment-weighted 0 percent of conventional
cooking product consumers experience a net cost, with the largest
impact being 1 percent net cost for gas cooking top product classes.
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 the Recommended TSL, 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 the Recommended TSL are economically
justified even without weighing the estimated monetary value of
emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions are included--
representing $0.22 billion in climate benefits (associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $0.42 billion (using
a 3-percent discount rate) or $0.16 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 new
and amended energy conservation standards, DOE notes that the
Recommended TSL has higher average LCC savings, a shorter average
payback period, a lower fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC
cost, and higher consumer net present values compared to TSL 2 and 3.
Although DOE considered new and amended standard levels for
consumer 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 smooth element cooking
top product classes, the Recommended TSL corresponds to efficiency
level (``EL'') 1, which incorporates low-standby-loss electronic
controls. Setting a standard at EL 2 or EL 3 would result in a majority
of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost and longer payback periods
relative to EL 1. For gas cooking top product classes, the Recommended
TSL corresponds to EL 1, which represents the efficiency level defined
in the Joint Agreement and which would not preclude any combination of
other features mentioned by manufacturers (e.g., multiple high input
rate burners (``HIR burners''),\16\ continuous cast-iron grates,
different nominal unit widths, sealed burners, at least one low input
rate burner (``LIR burner''),\17\ multiple dual-stacked and/or multi-
ring HIR burners, and at least one extra-high input rate burner), as
demonstrated by products from multiple manufacturers in the expanded
test sample. Setting a standard at EL 2 would result in an average net
LCC cost and a higher payback period relative to EL 1. For electric and
gas ovens, the Recommended TSL corresponds to EL 1, which incorporates
switch mode power supplies (``SMPSs''). 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 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 levels at the
Recommended TSL result 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 the Recommended TSL in the preceding
paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In this analysis, DOE defines an HIR burner as a burner
rated at or above 14,000 Btu per hour (``Btu/h'').
\17\ In this analysis, DOE defines an LIR burner as a burner
with an input rate below 6,500 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Secretary tentatively concludes that the
Recommended TSL would offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that
is technologically feasible and economically justified and would result
in the significant conservation of energy.
Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to
adopt the energy conservation standards for consumer conventional
cooking products at the Recommended TSL.
The proposed new and amended energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking products, excluding portable cooking
products, are shown in Table III.3 and Table III.4.
Table III.3--Proposed New and Amended Energy Conservation Standards for
Conventional Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum integrated annual energy
Product class consumption (IAEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking No standard.
Tops.
Electric Smooth Element Standalone 207 kWh/year.
Cooking Tops.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top 207 kWh/year.
Component of a Combined Cooking
Product.
Gas Standalone Cooking Tops.......... 1,770 kBtu/year.
Gas Cooking Top Component of a 1,770 kBtu/year.
Combined Cooking Product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.4--Proposed New and Amended Prescriptive Energy Conservation
Standards for Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class New and amended standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Ovens................... Shall not be equipped with a control
system that uses linear power
supply.*
[[Page 11558]]
Gas Ovens........................ The control system for gas ovens
shall:
(1) Not be equipped with a constant
burning pilot light; and
(2) Not be equipped with a linear
power supply.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary also tentatively concludes that an amended standard
is not technologically feasible and economically justified for electric
open (coil) element cooking tops. Therefore, DOE is not proposing any
energy conservation standards for electric open (coil) element cooking
tops.
B. 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 2022$) 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.
Table III.5 shows the annualized values for consumer conventional
cooking products under the Recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$. The
results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NOX and SO2 reductions, and the 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking products is $3.9
million per year in increased equipment installed costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $68.1 million from reduced equipment
operating costs, $12.4 million in GHG reductions, and $16.1 million
from reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this case,
the net benefit amounts to $92.6 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 $4.0 million per year in increased equipment costs,
while the estimated annual benefits are $90.8 million in reduced
operating costs, $12.4 million from GHG reductions, and $23.5 million
from reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this case,
the net benefit amounts to $122.7 million per year.
Table III.5--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards (Recommended TSL) for Consumer Conventional
Cooking Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2022$/year
-----------------------------------------------
Low-net- High-net-
Primary benefits benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 90.8 84.0 95.6
Climate Benefits *.............................................. 12.4 11.9 12.5
Health Benefits **.............................................. 23.5 22.6 23.8
-----------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................... 126.7 118.4 131.9
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..................... 4.0 4.1 3.8
Net Benefits.................................................... 122.7 114.3 128.1
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])............ (13.8) (13.8) (13.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 68.1 63.3 71.5
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)........................... 12.4 11.9 12.5
Health Benefits **.............................................. 16.1 15.5 16.3
-----------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................... 96.6 90.7 100.3
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..................... 3.9 4.0 3.8
Net Benefits.................................................... 92.6 86.7 96.5
Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])............ (13.8) (13.8) (13.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped
in 2028-2057. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the
products shipped in 2028-2057. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize
projections of energy prices from the AEO2023 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.2 of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. 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 the
direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register). 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, and it emphasizes the importance and value of
considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of
reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim 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.
[[Page 11559]]
** 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 the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register 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 DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
[Dagger][Dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life-cycle costs analysis and national
impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. DOE's national impacts analysis includes all impacts (both
costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to
manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately
conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of the direct final
rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers'
pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cash flow, and margins. The
MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the
present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital
expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry
weighted average cost of capital value of 9.1 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis
(see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost
of capital). For consumer conventional cooking products, the annualized change in INPV is -$13.8 million. DOE
accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a trial standard level is economically
justified. See section V.C of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross
Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost
Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers
would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production
costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA
explained further in section IV.J of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of the proposed rule to society,
including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and
E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for the proposed rule,
the annualized net benefits would be $108.9 million at 3-percent discount rate and would be $78.8 million at 7-
percent discount rate. Parentheses () indicate negative values.
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule on 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.
Comments relating to the direct final rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register should be submitted as instructed
therein.
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.
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, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail 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
[[Page 11560]]
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).
B. Public Meeting
As stated previously, if DOE withdraws the direct final rule
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for
additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of
any meeting in the Federal Register.
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are
identical to those conducted for the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Please see the direct
final rule for further details.
A. 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'')
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') 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
(www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has prepared the
following IRFA for the products that are the subject of this proposed
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)) DOE is proposing
amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products in accordance with DOE's obligations under EPCA.
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 significant conservation of energy.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In light of the above and the requirements under 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)-(B), DOE is issuing this NOPR proposing energy
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products.
These standard levels were submitted jointly to DOE on September 25,
2023, by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental
advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.\18\ The Joint Agreement
recommends specific energy conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products that, in the commenters' view, would
satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include AHAM,
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water
Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer
Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that manufacture the
affected products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko
Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home
Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home
Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE
Appliances, a Haier Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG
Electronics; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.;
PAPRSA Corporation of America; Perlick Corporation; Samsung
Electronics America, Inc.; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Smeg
S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby Corporation; U-Line
Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 must publish
either 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))
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
DOE 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 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. DOE used available
public information to identify potential small
[[Page 11561]]
manufacturers. DOE accessed the Compliance Certification Database \19\
(``CCD''), the Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System \20\
(``MAEDbS''), and the National Resources Canada database \21\
(``NRCan'') to create a list of companies that import or otherwise
manufacture the products covered by this NOPR. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification
Management System, available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
\20\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System, available at:
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Login.aspx.
\21\ Natural Resources Canada searchable product list, available
at: oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on DOE's analysis, DOE identified 35 companies that
manufacture consumer conventional cooking products covered by this
rulemaking. DOE screened out companies that have more than 1,500 total
employees, are not original equipment manufacturers (i.e., do not
manufacture the products they sell), or are entirely foreign owned and
operated, and therefore do not meet SBA's requirements to be considered
a small entity. Of the 35 companies DOE identified as manufacturers of
consumer conventional cooking products sold in the United States, 15
were identified as small businesses.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
DOE is proposing TSL 1 in this NOPR. For all conventional oven
product classes, TSL 1 requires that the conventional ovens not be
equipped with a linear power supply. Based on DOE's shipments analysis,
more than 95 percent of conventional ovens use an SMPS 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
SMPSs for the conventional ovens they manufacture. If any small
businesses do still use linear power supplies in their conventional
ovens, there would be minimal conversion costs to these small
businesses, as SMPSs can be purchased as a separate component and would
most likely not require a significant redesign to incorporate these
SMPSs. The remainder of this cost analysis focuses on the costs
associated with complying with the proposed conventional cooking top
energy conservation standards.
As stated in the previous section, DOE identified 15 small
manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products. All 15 of
these small businesses manufacture conventional cooking tops. These 15
small businesses can be grouped into two manufacturing groups: those
that manufacture premium cooking tops and those that manufacture non-
premium cooking tops.
Gas cooking top non-premium products typically have thinner non-
continuous grates with one or no HIR burner (although some of these
small businesses may offer a limited number of models with thicker
continuous grates). Electric cooking top non-premium products mostly
have electric open (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 non-premium small businesses usually compete on price in the
market.
Gas cooking top premium products typically have thicker continuous
grates with multiple HIR burners. Electric cooking top premium products
use smooth elements, typically with induction technology. Small
businesses manufacturing premium products do not offer electric open
(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 non-premium products.
Based on data from each small business's websites, DOE estimated
the number of basic models each small business offers.
Table V.1--Number of Unique Basic Models for Each Small Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of cooking top basic models
(by product class)
Manufacturer Small business type -------------------------------------
Electric--smooth
Gas element
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business 1........................... Non-Premium.................. 4 4
Small Business 2........................... Non-Premium.................. ................. 30
Small Business 3........................... Non-Premium.................. 27 13
Small Business 4........................... Non-Premium.................. 24 .................
Small Business 5........................... Non-Premium.................. 14 .................
Small Business 6........................... Non-Premium.................. 3 2
Small Business 7........................... Premium...................... 11 .................
Small Business 8........................... Premium...................... 24 5
Small Business 9........................... Premium...................... 20 7
Small Business 10.......................... Premium...................... 16 .................
Small Business 11.......................... Premium...................... 14 1
Small Business 12.......................... Premium...................... 12 .................
Small Business 13.......................... Premium...................... 42 .................
Small Business 14.......................... Premium...................... 13 .................
Small Business 15.......................... Premium...................... 14 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. 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. In the August 2022 TP
[[Page 11562]]
Final Rule, DOE estimated a lower per-unit testing cost for testing
done in-house and a more-costly third-party laboratory per-unit testing
cost. For this IRFA, DOE assumed all small businesses would incur the
more costly third-party laboratory 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 research and
development (``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 gas cooking tops and all electric smooth element cooking
tops since DOE is proposing new performance-based energy conservation
standards for cooking tops. Therefore, even products that meet the
proposed energy conservation standards would incur testing costs to
test these gas cooking tops and electric smooth element cooking tops to
demonstrate compliance with the proposed energy conservation standards.
However, manufacturers would only incur R&D product conversion costs
and capital conversion costs if they have products that do not meet the
proposed energy conservation standards.
Based on the estimated model counts for each conventional cooking
top product class shown in Table V.1 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 V.2. DOE then used D&B Hoovers to estimate
the annual revenue for each small business. DOE presents the estimated
conversion costs and testing costs as a percent of the estimated 4
years of annual revenue for each small business.
Table V.2--Estimated Conversion Costs and Annual Revenue for Each Small Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion
Total cost as a % of
Manufacturer Small business type conversion and Annual revenue 4-years of
testing costs annual revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business 1...................... Non-Premium............. $326,600 $950,000 9
Small Business 2...................... Non-Premium............. 573,002 8,780,000 2
Small Business 3...................... Non-Premium............. 611,001 58,630,000 <1
Small Business 4...................... Non-Premium............. 196,800 31,370,000 <1
Small Business 5...................... Non-Premium............. 114,800 23,980,000 <1
Small Business 6...................... Non-Premium............. 302,000 107,350,000 <1
Small Business 7...................... Premium................. 733,204 2,730,000 7
Small Business 8...................... Premium................. 1,224,306 5,000,000 6
Small Business 9...................... Premium................. 1,136,404 8,800,000 3
Small Business 10..................... Premium................. 774,204 7,990,000 2
Small Business 11..................... Premium................. 1,027,004 8,648,000 3
Small Business 12..................... Premium................. 741,404 10,970,000 2
Small Business 13..................... Premium................. 1,201,909 32,600,000 1
Small Business 14..................... Premium................. 749,604 19,800,000 1
Small Business 15..................... Premium................. 757,804 23,730,000 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 proposed rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small
businesses that would result from the proposed standards, represented
by TSL 1. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed standards, DOE
examined not setting energy conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products. While not setting energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking products would reduce the
impacts on small business manufacturers, it would come at the expense
of 0.22 quads of energy savings and between $1.56 billion to $0.65
billion in consumer net benefits.
Establishing standards at TSL 1 would balance the benefits of the
energy savings and consumer net benefits at TSL 1 with the potential
burdens placed on consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers,
including small business manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE is proposing
to adopt TSL 1 and is not proposing any of the other policy
alternatives examined as part of the regulatory impact analysis and
included in chapter 17 of the direct final rule TSD.
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.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
and Small businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 26,
2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
[[Page 11563]]
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 29, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. 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
2. Amend Sec. 430.2 by adding in alphabetical order, the definition of
``Portable indoor conventional cooking top'' to read as follows:
Sec. 430.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Portable indoor conventional cooking top means a conventional
cooking top designed--
(1) For indoor use; and
(2) To be moved from place to place.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 430.32 by revising paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) and the
heading to paragraph (j)(3) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their
compliance dates.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) Conventional cooking tops. (i) Gas cooking tops, other than gas
portable indoor conventional cooking tops, manufactured on or after
April 9, 2012, and before January 31, 2028, shall not be equipped with
a constant burning pilot light.
(ii) Gas portable indoor conventional cooking tops, manufactured on
or after April 9, 2012, shall not be equipped with a constant burning
pilot light.
(iii) Conventional cooking tops, other than portable indoor
conventional cooking tops, manufactured on or after January 31, 2028,
shall have an integrated annual energy consumption (IAEC), excluding
any downdraft venting system energy consumption, no greater than:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum integrated annual energy
Product class consumption (IAEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Electric Smooth Element 207 kWh/year.
Standalone Cooking Tops.
(B) Electric Smooth Element Cooking 207 kWh/year.
Top Component of Combined Cooking
Products.
(C) Gas Standalone Cooking Tops...... 1,770 kBtu/year.
(D) Gas Cooking Top Component of 1,770 kBtu/year.
Combined Cooking Products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Conventional ovens. 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 January 31, 2028.
(3) Microwave ovens. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-02007 Filed 2-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P