[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11434-11547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02008]



[[Page 11433]]

Vol. 89

Wednesday,

No. 31

February 14, 2024

Part III





 Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 430





Energy Conservation program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer 
Conventional Cooking Products; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 11434]]


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

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: Direct final rule.

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

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 direct final rule, the U.S. 
Department of Energy (``DOE'') is adopting new and amended energy 
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products. DOE 
has determined that the new and amended energy conservation standards 
for these products would result in significant conservation of energy, 
and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is June 13, 2024. If adverse 
comments are received by June 3, 2024 and DOE determines that such 
comments may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct 
final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), a timely withdrawal of this rule 
will be published in the Federal Register. If no such adverse comments 
are received, compliance with the new and amended standards established 
for consumer conventional cooking products in this direct final rule is 
required on and after January 31, 2028. Comments regarding the likely 
competitive impact of the standards contained in this direct final rule 
should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the 
ADDRESSES section on or before March 15, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal 
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 
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.
    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other 
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: 
[email protected].
    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 standards contained in this direct 
final rule. 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 direct final rule.

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].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits and Costs
    D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. Current Test Procedure
    3. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Conventional 
Cooking Products
    4. The Joint Agreement
III. General Discussion
    A. Scope of Coverage
    B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points of View
    C. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    D. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    E. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC 
and PBP)
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    g. Other Factors
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Product Classes
    a. Portable Indoor Conventional Cooking Tops
    2. Technology Options
    a. Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops
    b. Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
    c. Gas Cooking Tops
    d. Conventional Ovens
    B. Screening Analysis
    1. Screened-Out Technologies
    a. Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
    b. Gas Cooking Tops
    c. Conventional Ovens
    2. Remaining Technologies
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Efficiency Analysis
    a. Conventional Cooking Tops
    b. Conventional Ovens
    2. Cost Analysis
    3. Cost-Efficiency Results
    a. Electric Cooking Tops
    b. Gas Cooking Tops
    c. Conventional Ovens
    D. Markups Analysis
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Product Cost
    2. Installation Cost
    3. Annual Energy Consumption
    4. Energy Prices
    5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    6. Product Lifetime
    7. Discount Rates
    8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    9. Payback Period Analysis
    G. Shipments Analysis
    H. National Impact Analysis
    1. Product Efficiency Trends
    2. National Energy Savings
    3. Net Present Value Analysis
    I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    b. Shipments Projections
    c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
    3. Comments From Interested Parties
    K. Emissions Analysis
    1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
    1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    a. Social Cost of Carbon
    b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

[[Page 11435]]

    2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
    M. Utility Impact Analysis
    N. Employment Impact Analysis
    O. Regulatory Impact Analysis
    P. Other Comments
    1. Commerce Clause
    2. Fuel Neutrality under EPCA
    3. National Academy of Sciences Report
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Impact Analysis
    a. National Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    a. General Comments
    b. Market Availability
    c. High Input Rate Burners
    d. Low Input Rate Burners
    e. Cooking Time
    f. Continuous Cast-Iron Grates
    g. Conventional Ranges
    h. Unit Width
    i. Conclusion
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    C. Conclusion
    1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer 
Conventional Cooking Products Standards
    2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
    D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
    1. Sampling and Test Procedure Repeatability
    2. Single-Zone Conventional Cooking Tops
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Information Quality
    M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency 
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include consumer conventional cooking 
products, the subject of this direct final 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 issuing this direct final rule establishing and 
amending energy conservation standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products.
    The adopted standard levels in this 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 (``SDG&E'') and Southern 
California Edison (``SCE'') \5\ advocating for the adoption of the 
recommended standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 the direct final rule provisions at 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4), DOE has determined that the recommendations contained in 
the Joint Agreement are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). As required 
by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is also simultaneously publishing a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that contains identical 
standards to those adopted in this direct final rule. Consistent with 
the statute, DOE is providing a 110-day public comment period on the 
direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines that any 
comments received provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 
direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or any other applicable law, 
DOE will publish the reasons for withdrawal and continue the rulemaking 
under the NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) See section II.A of this 
document for more details on DOE's statutory authority.
    The new and amended standards that DOE is adopting in this direct 
final rule are the efficiency levels recommended in the Joint Agreement 
(shown in Table I.1 and Table I.2). They 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'').
    The Joint Agreement replaces the existing prescriptive standard for 
gas cooking tops--which prohibits a constant burning pilot light--with 
a performance standard that is expressed as the maximum IAEC as 
determined in accordance with the appendix I1 test procedure. The Joint 
Agreement excludes portable indoor conventional cooking tops (discussed 
in section III.A of this document) from these amended standards, and 
DOE is clarifying in this direct final rule that the existing 
prohibition on constant burning pilot lights for gas portable indoor 
conventional cooking tops will continue to be applicable. For electric 
cooking tops, the Joint Agreement recommends

[[Page 11436]]

a performance standard that similarly is expressed as the maximum IAEC, 
determined in accordance with the appendix I1 test procedure. For both 
gas and electric cooking tops, the IAEC metric includes active mode, 
standby mode, and off mode energy use. The Joint Agreement's standards 
for conventional cooking tops apply to all products listed in Table I.1 
and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on 
January 31, 2028.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.000

    DOE notes that none of the Department's energy conservation 
standards limit a consumer's use of a covered product, including 
consumer conventional cooking products. For example, the Joint 
Agreement's performance standards for conventional cooking tops, which 
are expressed as the maximum IAEC in kWh/year for electric cooking tops 
and kBtu/year for gas cooking tops, do not limit consumers' use of a 
conventional cooking top within the home. Rather, the IAEC metric is a 
measure of the estimated energy usage for a given cooking top model for 
a representative period of use (in this case, 1 year), as determined 
according to the DOE test procedure. Expressing energy conservation 
standards for conventional cooking tops in terms of the IAEC metric 
provides a common point of comparison across all conventional cooking 
top models, e.g., a conventional cooking top with a lower IAEC is more 
energy efficient. And establishing a maximum IAEC ensures that all 
conventional cooking tops meet at least a certain level of energy 
efficiency, while not limiting a consumer's use of their conventional 
cooking top.
    This direct final rule also establishes a prescriptive design 
requirement for conventional ovens that prohibits conventional ovens 
from being equipped with a control system that uses a linear power 
supply. (See Table I.2.) The new and amended standards recommended in 
the Joint Agreement are represented as trial standard level (``TSL'') 1 
in this document and are described in section V.A of this document. 
These standards apply to all conventional ovens manufactured in, or 
imported into, the United States starting on January 31, 2028, as 
recommended by the Joint Agreement. DOE also notes that the current 
prescriptive standards for gas ovens prohibiting constant burning pilot 
lights will continue to be applicable. (10 CFR 430.32(j)) Table I.2 
provides a summary of the standards for conventional ovens.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.001

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

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

    \6\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected 
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency 
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market 
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards 
(see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is 
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative 
to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document).

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

[[Page 11437]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.002

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

B. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the 
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year (2024) through 
the end of the analysis period, which is 30 years from the analyzed 
compliance date.\7\ Using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE 
estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of consumer conventional 
cooking products in the case without new and amended standards is 
$1,601 million.\8\ Under the adopted standards, which align with the 
Recommended TSL for consumer conventional cooking products, DOE 
estimates the change in INPV to range from -9.0 percent to -9.0 
percent, which is approximately a change in INPV of -$144 million to -
$143 million, respectively. In order to bring products into compliance 
with new and amended standards, it is estimated that industry will 
incur total conversion costs of $66.7 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ DOE's analysis period extends 30 years from the compliance 
year. The analysis period ranges from 2024-2056 for the no-new-
standards case and all TSLs, except for TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL). 
The analysis period for the Recommended TSL ranges from 2024-2057 
due to the 2028 compliance year.
    \8\ The no-new-standards case INPV of $1,601 million reflects 
the sum of discounted free cash flows from 2024-2056 (from the 
reference year to 30 years after the 2027 compliance date) plus a 
discounted terminal value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on 
manufacturers is described in section IV.J and section V.B.2 of this 
document.

C. National Benefits and Costs 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022 
dollars. and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2024 unless 
explicitly stated otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation 
standards for consumer conventional cooking products would save a 
significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new and 
amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for consumer 
conventional cooking products purchased in the 30-year period that 
begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new and amended 
standards (2028-2057), amount to 0.22 quadrillion British thermal units 
(``Btu''), or quads.\10\ This represents a savings of approximately 2 
percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case 
without new or amended standards (referred to as the ``no-new-standards 
case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy 
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in 
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, 
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete 
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more 
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer 
benefits of the standards for consumer conventional cooking products 
ranges from $0.65 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $1.56 
billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the 
estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the 
estimated increased product and installation costs for consumer 
conventional cooking products purchased in 2028-2057.
    In addition, the adopted standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products are projected to yield significant environmental 
benefits. DOE estimates that the standards will result in cumulative 
emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 
3.99 million metric tons (``Mt'') \11\ of carbon dioxide 
(``CO2''), 1.15 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 
(``SO2''), 7.61 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 
(``NOX''), 34.70 thousand tons of methane 
(``CH4''), 0.04 thousand tons of nitrous oxide 
(``N2O''), and 0.01 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\12\ The 
estimated cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions through 2030 
amounts to 0.06 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from 
the annual electricity use of more than 11 thousand homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
    \12\ 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 this 
document for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that effect 
air pollutant emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in 
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social 
cost of CO2 (``SC-CO2''), the social cost of 
methane (``SC-CH4''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide 
(``SC-N2O''). Together these represent the social cost of 
GHG (``SC-GHG''). DOE used interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit 
per ton of GHG avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on 
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (``IWG'').\13\ The derivation of 
these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For 
presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the 
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $0.22 
billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and 
it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits 
calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this 
analysis uses values that are based on 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. (``Feb. 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO2 and 
NOX emissions reductions, using benefit per ton estimates 
from Environmental

[[Page 11438]]

Protection Agency,\14\ as discussed in section IV.L of this document. 
DOE did not monetize the reduction in mercury emissions because the 
quantity is very small. DOE estimated the present value of the health 
benefits would be $0.16 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and 
$0.42 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\15\ DOE is currently 
only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations from two 
precursors (SO2 and NOX), and from changes in 
ambient ozone from one precursor (for NOX), but will 
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health 
benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing 
Directly-Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors and 
Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.
    \15\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions 
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of 
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table I.4 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to 
result from the new and amended standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products. There are other important unquantified effects, 
including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public 
health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other 
emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional 
effects, among others.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.003


[[Page 11439]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.004

    The benefits and costs of the adopted standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the 
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating 
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and 
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits 
of emission reductions, all annualized.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from 
each year to 2024. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the 
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the 
compliance year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. 
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the 
covered products and are measured for the lifetime of consumer 
conventional cooking products shipped in 2028-2057. The benefits 
associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the adopted 
standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of consumer 
conventional cooking products shipped in 2028-2057. Total benefits for 
both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average 
GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of total 
benefits are presented for all four SC-GHG discount rates in section 
V.B.6 of this document.
    Table I.5 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs 
associated with the adopted standards, expressed in terms of annualized 
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted 
in this rule is $3.9 million per year in increased equipment costs, 
while the estimated annual benefits are $68.1 million in reduced 
equipment operating costs, $12.4 million in climate benefits, and $16.1 
million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount 
to $92.6 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the standards 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 in climate benefits, and 
$23.5 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would 
amount to $122.7 million per year.

[[Page 11440]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.005


[[Page 11441]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.006

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

D. Conclusion

    DOE has determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted jointly 
by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points 
of view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). After considering 
the recommended standards and weighing the benefits and burdens, DOE 
has determined that the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards. Specifically, the Secretary of Energy 
(``Secretary'') has determined that the adoption of the recommended 
standards would result in the significant conservation of energy and is 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. In determining whether the 
recommended standards are economically justified, the Secretary has 
determined that the benefits of the recommended standards exceed the 
burdens. The Secretary has further concluded that the recommended 
standards, when considering the benefits of energy savings, positive 
NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary 
value of the emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings, 
would yield benefits that outweigh the negative impacts on some 
consumers and on manufacturers, including the conversion costs that 
could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent 
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the 
standards for consumer conventional cooking products is $3.9 million 
per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual 
benefits are $68.1 million in reduced product operating costs, $12.4 
million in climate benefits, and $16.1 million in health benefits. The 
net benefit amounts to $92.6 million per year. DOE notes that the net 
benefits are substantial even in the absence of the climate 
benefits,\17\ and DOE would adopt the same standards in the absence of 
such benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The information on climate benefits is provided in 
compliance with Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended 
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of 
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\18\ For 
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy 
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of 
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than 
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates 
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration 
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures 
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in 
estimated national energy savings of 0.22 quads FFC, the equivalent of 
the primary annual energy use of 1.4 million homes. In addition, they 
are projected to reduce cumulative CO2 emissions by 3.99 Mt. 
Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from the 
standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are ``significant'' 
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed 
discussion of the basis for these conclusions is contained in the 
remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support 
document (``TSD'').\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at 
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is 
issuing this direct final rule establishing and amending the energy 
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products. 
Consistent with this authority, DOE is also simultaneously publishing 
elsewhere in this Federal Register a NOPR proposing standards that are 
identical to those contained in this direct final rule. See 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(A)(i).

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this direct final rule, as well as some of the relevant 
historical background related to the establishment of standards for 
consumer conventional cooking products.

A. Authority

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include consumer 
conventional cooking products, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 
6292(a)(10)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these 
products (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)), and 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,

[[Page 11442]]

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 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 
new and amended standards adopted in this direct final rule.
    Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE 
authority to 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.

[[Page 11443]]

    The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a NOPR 
that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is 
identical to the standard established in 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)) While DOE typically provides a 
comment period of 60 days on proposed standards, for a NOPR 
accompanying a direct final rule, DOE provides a comment period of the 
same length as the comment period on the direct final rule--i.e., 110 
days. 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.)
    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 (``Process Rule'' or ``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 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.
    On February 7, 2023, DOE published correcting amendments to the 
August 2022 TP Final Rule (``February 2023 Correcting Amendments''). 88 
FR 7846. Neither the errors and omissions nor the corrections affected 
the substance of the rulemaking, or any conclusions reached in support 
of the August 2022 TP Final Rule. Id.
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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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 this direct final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The Joint Agreement
    On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (i.e., the 
Joint Agreement) recommending standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products that was submitted by groups representing 
manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and 
a utility.\21\ In addition to the

[[Page 11444]]

recommended standards for consumer conventional cooking products, the 
Joint Agreement also included separate recommendations for several 
other covered products.\22\ 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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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.
    \22\ 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.
    \23\ The Joint Agreement is available in the docket at 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12811.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.007

    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 \24\ on January 5, 2024, and will address the issues raised 
in the comment in a separate test procedure rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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 residential 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
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 (``February 2023 NODA''). 88 FR 6818. Finally, on August 2, 2023, 
DOE published a second NODA (``August 2023 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.
    Although DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement as a direct final rule 
and no longer proceeding with its own rulemaking, DOE did consider 
relevant comments, data, and information obtained during that 
rulemaking process

[[Page 11445]]

in determining whether the recommended standards from the Joint 
Agreement are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Any discussion of 
comments, data, or information in this direct final rule that were 
obtained during DOE's prior rulemaking will include a parenthetical 
reference that provides the location of the item in the public 
record.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005, which is maintained at 
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged as follows: 
(commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

    DOE is issuing this direct final rule after determining that the 
recommended standards submitted in the Joint Agreement meet the 
requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). More specifically, DOE has 
determined that the recommended standards were submitted by interested 
persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view and 
the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

A. Scope of Coverage

    Before discussing how the Joint Agreement meets the requirements 
for issuing a direct final rule, it is important to clarify the scope 
of coverage for the recommended standards. DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 
430.2 define ``cooking products'' as consumer products that are used as 
the major household cooking appliances. They are designed to cook or 
heat different types of food by one or more of the following sources of 
heat: gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist 
of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units \26\ 
and/or one or more heating compartments. 10 CFR 430.2. This direct 
final rule covers consumer conventional cooking products, i.e., those 
consumer cooking products that meet the definition of ``conventional 
cooking top'' and ``conventional oven,'' as codified at 10 CFR 430.2. 
Industrial cooking equipment and microwave ovens are not in the scope 
of this direct final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The term ``surface unit'' refers to burners for gas cooking 
tops and electric resistance heating elements or inductive heating 
elements for electric cooking tops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Joint Agreement, portable cooking products are excluded from 
the Recommended TSL. (Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10) However DOE 
does not currently have a definition for portable cooking products, nor 
does the Joint Agreement specify one.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE proposed to define a portable 
conventional cooking top as a conventional cooking top designed to be 
moved from place to place. 88 FR 6818, 6829. Using this definition, DOE 
proposed that the proposed standards for conventional cooking tops 
would apply to portable models according to their means of heating 
(gas, electric open (coil) element, or electric smooth element). Id.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposed 
definition for portable conventional cooking top and DOE's proposal to 
include portable conventional cooking tops in the existing product 
classes. Id. Stakeholder comments received in response to the February 
2023 SNOPR regarding DOE's definition of portable conventional cooking 
top and proposal to include portable conventional cooking tops in the 
standards were consistent with the exclusion of portable cooking 
products specified in the Joint Agreement.
    AHAM stated its strong opposition to the inclusion of portable 
cooking tops in the scope of energy conservation standards for cooking 
tops because AHAM asserted DOE had done no analysis on this product 
type and made little mention of them in the February 2023 SNOPR. (AHAM, 
No. 2285 at pp. 28-29; AHAM, No. 10116 at pp. 31-32) AHAM commented 
that DOE's proposed definition is so vague that AHAM believes it could 
include a wide array of products such as cooking tops in recreational 
vehicles and tea kettles. (Id.) AHAM further requested that if portable 
cooking products are included in the scope of this rule, DOE ensure it 
provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on its 
analysis and proposal. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that it opposes including portable cooking tops in 
the scope of the energy conservation standards for cooking tops. (AHAM, 
No. 10116 at pp. 31-32) AHAM commented that there is inadequate data to 
consider standards for portable cooking tops, given that the expanded 
test sample contains only one portable cooking top with a single 
cooking zone. (Id.) AHAM asserted that given the lack of repeatability 
and reproducibility data on portable cooking top units, DOE should 
account for at least a 5.6 percent variation between laboratories, as 
shown for an electric unit in DOE's test procedure round robin testing, 
resulting in an IAEC of 216 kWh/year for the tested portable unit that 
does not meet the proposed standard for electric smooth element cooking 
tops. (Id.) AHAM asserted that portable cooking tops may be eliminated 
from the market if the proposed standard is finalized. (Id.)
    Consumers' Research asserted that regulating the energy efficiency 
of portable gas cooking tops under the same rules as stationary cooking 
tops is unreasonable and recommended that DOE consider separate 
rulemakings for each of these product categories. (Consumers' Research, 
No. 2267 at p. 5) Consumers' Research noted that portable gas cooking 
tops have a different range of manufacturing costs and constraints than 
stationary gas cooking tops, they use different types of natural gas, 
and the cost structure for manufacturing them is different. (Id.) 
Consumers' Research further commented that portable gas cooking tops 
account for only a tiny percentage of the energy consumed by all gas 
cooking products and their exclusion would not substantially affect the 
projected energy efficiency benefits of the proposed rule. (Id.)
    DOE also received eight comments from individual commenters who 
expressed concerns about the impact of the standards proposed in the 
February 2023 SNOPR on barbecues and grills.
    As discussed, the Joint Agreement does not specify a definition for 
portable cooking tops. But, based on the comments received in response 
to the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE has determined that additional clarity 
is warranted regarding the definition of a portable conventional 
cooking top. DOE notes that, as proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR, a 
portable conventional cooking top is a category of conventional cooking 
top. DOE defines a ``conventional cooking top'' as a category of 
cooking products that is a household cooking appliance consisting of a 
horizontal surface containing one or more surface units that utilize a 
gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating. 
This includes any conventional cooking top component of a combined 
cooking product. 10 CFR 430.2.
    Furthermore, as defined, a conventional cooking top is a category 
of cooking product. DOE defines ``cooking products'' as consumer 
products that are used as the major household cooking appliances. They 
are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or more of 
the following sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy. 
Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing one or 
more surface units and/or one or more heating compartments. 10 CFR 
430.2.

[[Page 11446]]

    Therefore, in order for any product to be considered a portable 
conventional cooking top, it must also satisfy the definition of 
conventional cooking top and of cooking product, as defined in 10 CFR 
430.2.
    Specifically, DOE does not consider a tea kettle to be a major 
household cooking appliance designed to cook or heat different types of 
food. Therefore, a tea kettle does not meet the definition of a cooking 
product and cannot be considered a portable conventional cooking top.
    Regarding a cooking top in a recreational vehicle (``RV''), DOE 
notes that EPCA excludes from coverage those consumer products designed 
solely for use in RVs and other mobile equipment. 42 U.S.C. 6292(a). 
For example, DOE is aware of gas cooking tops that incorporate an 
ignition system that must be connected to 12 Volts of direct current 
power, which is commonly used in RV battery systems and is not present 
in U.S. households, and has determined that these products are designed 
solely for use in RVs and therefore excluded from coverage. Regarding 
the definition of portable cooking tops, DOE further notes that 
although a cooking top that is not designed solely for use in RVs or 
other mobile equipment may be installed within a vehicle, the product 
itself is not necessarily designed to be moved from place to place 
within the installed location. Therefore, the mere fact of installing a 
cooking top in an RV does not classify the product as a portable 
conventional cooking top.
    Regarding barbecues and grills, DOE does not consider these 
products to be used as the main sources of cooking within a household. 
Therefore, DOE determines that barbecues and grills do not satisfy the 
definition of cooking product.
    To ensure clarity in this regard, in this direct final rule, DOE is 
further specifying that portable cooking tops are portable indoor 
conventional cooking tops and is defining ``portable indoor 
conventional cooking top'' as a conventional cooking top designed (1) 
for indoor use and (2) to be moved from place to place.
    For these reasons, DOE has determined that portable indoor 
conventional cooking tops are covered products. But as specified in the 
Joint Agreement, DOE is not adopting standards for these products in 
this direct final rule. However, gas portable indoor conventional 
cooking tops, as gas cooking products, remain subject to the existing 
prohibition on constant burning pilot lights. DOE may consider adopting 
amended standards for portable indoor conventional cooking tops in a 
future rulemaking.
    See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product 
classes analyzed in this direct final rule.

B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points of View

    Under the direct final rule provision in EPCA, recommended energy 
conservation standards must be submitted 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 DOE. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) 
With respect to this requirement, DOE notes that the Joint Agreement 
included a trade association, AHAM, which represents 19 manufacturers 
of consumer conventional cooking products. The Joint Agreement also 
included environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, 
consumer advocacy organizations, and a gas and electric utility 
company. Additionally, DOE received a letter in support of the Joint 
Agreement from the States of New York, California, and Massachusetts 
(See comment No. 12812). DOE also received a letter in support of the 
Joint Agreement from the gas and electric utility, SDG&E, and the 
electric utility, SCE (See comment No. 12813). As a result, DOE has 
determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted by interested persons 
who are fairly representative of relevant points of view.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a 
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current 
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the 
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the 
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list 
of technology options for consideration in consultation with 
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then 
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are 
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in 
commercially available products or in working prototypes to be 
technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the 
Process Rule.
    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse 
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on 
health or safety and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 
Section 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document 
discusses the results of the screening analysis for consumer 
conventional cooking products, particularly the designs DOE considered, 
those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards 
considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening 
analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the direct final rule 
TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended standard for a type or 
class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is 
technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 
Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum 
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy 
efficiency for consumer conventional cooking products, using the design 
parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or 
in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this 
rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this document and in 
chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy 
savings from application of the TSL to consumer conventional cooking 
products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of 
compliance with the new or amended standards (2027-2056 for all TSLs 
except the Recommended TSL, i.e., TSL 1, and 2028-2057 for TSL 1).\27\ 
The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of consumer 
conventional cooking products purchased in the 30-year analysis period. 
DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the 
difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the 
no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a 
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a 
product would likely

[[Page 11447]]

evolve in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers 
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet models 
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential new or 
amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products. The NIA 
spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) 
calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy 
directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For 
electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary 
energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to 
generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the 
primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy 
savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The 
FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), 
and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy 
conservation standards.\28\ DOE's approach is based on the calculation 
of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered 
products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see 
section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy 
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as 
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
    To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE 
must determine that such action would result in significant energy 
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended 
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of 
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\29\ For 
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy 
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of 
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than 
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates 
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into 
account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the 
cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the 
global climate crisis, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration 
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures 
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated, the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule 
are projected to result in national energy savings of 0.22 quad, the 
equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 1.5 million homes. Based 
on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, 
and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined 
the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct 
final rule are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B).

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in 
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)(VII)) The 
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven 
factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of potential new or amended standards on 
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of 
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash flow approach to determine 
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term 
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the 
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must 
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year 
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which 
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) 
cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other 
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports 
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on 
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on 
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as 
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of 
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts 
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on 
manufacturers.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and payback period (``PBP'') associated with new or 
amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the 
following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates 
the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits 
expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the 
impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers 
that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and 
PBP)
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the 
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the 
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product 
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP 
analysis.
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including 
its installation) and the operating cost (including energy, 
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of 
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as 
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance 
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for 
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific 
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a 
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
    The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes 
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost 
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
    For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will 
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new 
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency 
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected 
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and 
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this 
document.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for adopting an energy

[[Page 11448]]

conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic 
justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy 
savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H of this 
document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national 
energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard 
levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the 
utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards 
adopted in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of 
the products under consideration in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is 
likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It 
also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of 
any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to 
transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the 
publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature 
and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will 
transmit a copy of this direct final rule to the Attorney General with 
a request that the Department of Justice (``DOJ'') provide its 
determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the 
rule in determining whether to withdraw the direct final rule. DOE will 
also publish and respond to the DOJ's comments in the Federal Register 
in a separate notice.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    DOE also considers the need for national energy and water 
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy 
savings from the adopted standards are likely to provide improvements 
to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. 
Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced 
costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity 
system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how 
standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as 
discussed in section IV.M of this document.
    DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits 
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take 
into account when considering the need for national energy 
conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in 
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air 
pollutants and greenhouse gases (``GHGs'') associated with energy 
production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how 
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section 
IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in 
section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value 
of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as 
discussed in section IV.L of this document.
g. Other Factors
    In determining whether an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To 
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic 
justification that does not fit into the other categories described 
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other 
factors.''
    In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, ONE Gas commented that 
economic justification should be based primarily upon consumer LCC 
savings and that economic benefits associated with highly speculative 
health benefits should play only a minor role. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at 
pp. 8-9, 15).
    As described in the preceding sections, consumer impacts are one of 
seven factors listed in EPCA for DOE to consider when determining 
whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically 
justified. DOE has and will continue to consider all of these factors 
in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is 
economically justified.
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a 
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of 
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP 
analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential new or 
amended energy conservation standards would have on the payback period 
for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-
year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. 
In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers 
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and 
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The 
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the 
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby 
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of 
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation 
is discussed in section IV.F of this document.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

    This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this 
rulemaking with regard to consumer conventional cooking products. 
Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses, 
including relevant comments DOE received during its separate rulemaking 
to amend the energy conservation standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products prior to receiving the Joint Agreement.
    DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the 
standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet 
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential new or amended 
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a 
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and 
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total 
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy 
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the 
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer 
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are 
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document. Additionally, DOE used output 
from the latest version of the U.S. Energy Information Administration 
(``EIA'') Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO'') for the emissions and utility 
impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment 
that provides an overall picture of the

[[Page 11449]]

market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the 
products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market 
characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity 
includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily 
on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market 
and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a 
determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) 
manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, 
(4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) 
technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency 
of consumer conventional cooking products. The key findings of DOE's 
market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 
3 of the direct final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and 
technology assessment.
1. Product Classes
    The Joint Agreement specifies seven product classes for consumer 
conventional cooking products. (Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10) In 
particular, the Joint Agreement recommends separate product classes for 
ranges--a type of combined cooking product that combines a conventional 
cooking top and a conventional oven--and standalone cooking tops for 
both electric smooth element cooking tops and gas cooking tops. (Id.) 
In this direct final rule, DOE is adopting the product classes from the 
Joint Agreement, with updated nomenclature that clarifies that the 
``range'' product classes refer to the cooking top component of any 
combined cooking product, as listed in Table IV.1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.008

    Because combined cooking products include a conventional cooking 
top and/or a conventional oven, the conventional cooking top and 
conventional oven standards apply to the individual components of the 
combined cooking product.
    DOE further notes that product classes established through EPCA's 
direct final rule authority are not subject to the criteria specified 
at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) for establishing product classes. Nevertheless, 
in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)--which is applicable to direct 
final rules--DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this 
direct final rule will not result in the unavailability in any covered 
product type (or class) of performance characteristics, features, 
sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those 
generally available in the United States currently.\30\ DOE's findings 
in this regard are discussed in detail in section V.B.4 of this 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ EPCA specifies that DOE may not prescribe an amended or new 
standard if the Secretary finds (and publishes such finding) that 
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 at the time of the 
Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Portable Indoor Conventional Cooking Tops
    As discussed, while DOE notes that portable indoor conventional 
cooking tops are covered products, the Joint Agreement recommends 
excluding portable cooking products from the conventional cooking top 
and conventional oven product classes. (Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at 
p. 10)
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE proposed standards for conventional 
cooking tops that would apply to portable models according to their 
means of heating (gas, electric open (coil) element, or electric smooth 
element). 88 FR 6818, 6829.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE sought data and information on its 
initial determination not to differentiate conventional cooking tops on 
the basis of portability when considering product classes for the 
February 2023 SNOPR analysis. Id.

[[Page 11450]]

    AHAM commented that DOE has done no analysis on portable cooking 
tops and made little mention of them in the February 2023 SNOPR. (AHAM, 
No. 2285 at pp. 28-29) AHAM commented that DOE presents no data on 
several critical aspects related to portable cooking tops: consumer 
usage and the possibility that the use case for portable products is 
likely different than for major appliances in terms of the frequency 
and duration of use; the efficiency of portable products; test data for 
portable products and their relative efficiency; the similarities and/
or differences between portable products and major appliances to show 
that it has evaluated whether it is justified to apply the same 
standard to both types of products or to allow commenters to make such 
an evaluation; or how the test procedure would apply to portable 
products, given that the pressure of butane and propane canisters do 
not meet the specifications of appendix I1. (Id.) AHAM commented that 
if portable cooking products are included in the scope of this rule, 
they should be in a separate product class given their distinct utility 
and (for electric products) differently rated voltage. (Id.)
    As discussed in section III.A of this document, DOE is defining 
``portable indoor conventional cooking top'' as a conventional cooking 
top designed (1) for indoor use and (2) to be moved from place to 
place. DOE considers this definition to apply mainly to ``hot plate'' 
style cooking products, which are typically electric cooking tops. As 
such, DOE is aware of no reason that these products cannot be tested to 
the appendix I1 test procedure. However, as discussed in section III.A 
of this document, the Joint Agreement specifies that portable indoor 
conventional cooking tops are not subject to the standards for 
conventional cooking tops adopted in this direct final rule. DOE notes 
however, that gas portable indoor conventional cooking tops, as gas 
cooking products, remain subject to the existing prohibition on 
constant burning pilot lights.
2. Technology Options
    In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE 
identified technology options that would be expected to improve the 
efficiency of conventional cooking tops and of conventional ovens. 
These technologies encompass all those that DOE believes are 
technologically feasible. Section 3.12 of chapter 3 of the TSD for this 
direct final rule includes the detailed list and descriptions of all 
technology options identified for consumer conventional cooking 
products.
    As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final rule, 
DOE has performed market research and evaluated available consumer 
conventional cooking products to assess existing technology options to 
improve efficiency. The results of this research are discussed in the 
following sections and in chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final 
rule.
a. Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops
    The Joint Agreement recommends establishing no standards for 
electric open (coil) element cooking tops. (Joint Agreement, No. 12811 
at p. 10)
    For electric open (coil) element cooking tops, in the February 2023 
SNOPR, DOE did not identify any technology options for improving 
efficiency. 88 FR 6818, 6840. DOE sought comment on any existing 
technologies that improve the efficiency of electric open (coil) 
element cooking tops. Id.
    AHAM agreed with DOE's determination that there are no available 
technology options for improving efficiency of electric open (coil) 
element cooking tops and with DOE's decision not to include improved 
contact conductance as a technology option based on data and 
information AHAM provided related to pan warpage. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 
31) AHAM commented that the unavailability of a viable technology 
option to improve efficiency is enough on its own to support a 
determination that a standard for this product class is not 
technologically feasible. (Id.)
    ASAP et al.\31\ recommended that DOE investigate the design 
considerations that may drive differences in efficiency among open 
element cooking tops. (ASAP et al., No. 2273 at p. 5) ASAP et al. 
commented that, based on DOE's test data, which included a test unit 
with an IAEC of 185 kWh/yr., they believe there may be potential 
efficiency levels beyond the baseline level. (Id.) ASAP et al. 
recommended that DOE further investigate what may be driving the 
efficiency differences among electric open element models or consider 
an efficiency-level approach for this product class. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In this context ``ASAP et al.'' refers to a joint comment 
from Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an 
Energy Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, National 
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, and 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE acknowledges the range of IAEC values among the electric open 
(coil) element cooking tops in the expanded test sample, but DOE notes 
that it is unaware of any technology options that can be used to 
improve these products' efficiency. Therefore, DOE did not identify any 
incremental efficiency levels.
    For these reasons, and in accordance with the recommendation in the 
Joint Agreement, DOE did not evaluate electric open (coil) element 
cooking tops as part of the efficiency analysis for this direct final 
rule. For simplicity, many of the tables and headings in the following 
sections of this document omit the designation that the electric 
cooking tops for which energy conservation standards are being 
considered have ``smooth elements.''
b. Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
    For electric smooth element cooking tops, considered the 
technologies listed in Table IV.2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.009


[[Page 11451]]


    DOE did not receive any comments regarding technology options for 
electric smooth element cooking tops in response to the February 2023 
SNOPR.
    DOE additionally notes that, consistent with the design option 
evaluated with the proposed EL 2 in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE has 
evaluated improved resistance heating elements as a design option for 
electric smooth element cooking tops. 88 FR 6818, 6846.
    Consistent with the February 2023 SNOPR, in this direct final rule, 
DOE considered the technologies listed in Table IV.3 for both electric 
smooth element cooking top product classes.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.010

c. Gas Cooking Tops
    For gas cooking tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE considered 
the technologies listed in Table IV.4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.011

    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE evaluated two versions of the 
optimized burner and grate design option, representative of a minimum 
of either four or one high input rate burners (``HIR burners'').\32\ 88 
FR 6818, 6850-6851.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In this direct final rule, DOE defines an HIR burner as a 
burner rated at or above 14,000 Btu per hour (``Btu/h'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the August 2023 NODA, DOE identified an additional type of 
optimized burner and grate design, in which a burner with optimized 
turndown capability can be implemented in place of a burner with ``non-
optimized'' turndown capability (i.e., the lowest available simmer 
setting is more energy consumptive than necessary to hold the test load 
in a constant simmer close to 90 degrees Celsius (``[deg]C''), 
resulting in significantly higher energy consumption than for a burner 
with a simmer setting that holds the test load close to that 
temperature). 88 FR 50810, 50813.
    For the reasons stated in the February 2023 SNOPR, in this direct 
final rule, DOE considered the technologies listed in Table IV.5 for 
both gas cooking top product classes.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.012

d. Conventional Ovens
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE stated that it considers that 
intermittent pilot ignition systems would not provide energy savings 
and did not consider them as a technology option. 88 FR 6818, 6841. DOE 
requested information on the potential energy savings associated with 
intermittent pilot ignition systems. Id.
    Strauch supported DOE's decision to not consider intermittent/
interrupted or intermittent pilot ignition systems as a technology 
option for gas ovens, asserting that for DOE to conduct its own testing 
on this matter would be a waste of taxpayer money. (Strauch, No. 2263 
at p. 2)
    For both gas and electric oven product classes, in this direct 
final rule, DOE considered the technologies listed in Table IV.6, 
consistent with the February 2023 SNOPR.

[[Page 11452]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.013

B. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following screening criteria to determine which 
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking:

    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, 
existing prototypes will not be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it 
is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial 
products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology 
could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant 
market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, 
then that technology will not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to 
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to 
subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any 
covered product type with performance characteristics (including 
reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are 
substantially the same as products generally available in the United 
States at the time, it will not be considered further.
    (4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a 
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or 
safety, it will not be considered further.
    (5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has 
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving 
a given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to 
the potential for monopolistic concerns.

    10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
    In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of 
technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it 
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering 
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in 
the following sections.
    The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties 
pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each 
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether 
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened 
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
    In conducting the screening analysis for this direct final rule, 
DOE considered comments it had received in response to the screening 
analysis conducted for the February 2023 SNOPR.
a. Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE tentatively determined that it 
would not be practicable to manufacture, install, and service halogen 
heating elements for electric smooth element cooking tops on the scale 
necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective 
date of a new standard, and screened out this technology from further 
consideration. 88 FR 6818, 6842.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE also screened out a subset of low-
standby-loss electronic controls, namely those that use ``automatic 
power-down'' because this type of low-standby-loss electronic controls 
may negatively impact product utility. Id. In particular, it may result 
in a loss in the utility of the continuous clock display for combined 
cooking products, such as ranges. However, it should be noted that the 
other low-standby-loss electronic controls such as switch-mode power 
supplies (``SMPSs'') were still analyzed in the February 2023 SNOPR. 
Id.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE additionally screened out reduced 
air gap as a technology option because DOE is aware that the air gaps 
in commercialized radiant heating elements are currently as small as is 
practicable to manufacture on the scale necessary to serve the cooking 
products market. Id. Furthermore, DOE stated that it is not aware of 
the magnitude of potential energy savings from this technology. Id.
    DOE requested comment on the magnitude of potential energy savings 
that could result from the use of a reduced air gap as a technology 
option. Id. DOE sought comment on its screening analysis for electric 
smooth element cooking tops and whether any additional technology 
options should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening 
criteria in the February 2023 SNOPR.
    AHAM stated agreement with DOE's determination to screen out 
halogen elements in the screening analysis for electric smooth element 
cooking tops based on its determination that it would not be 
practicable to manufacture, install, and service halogen heating 
elements on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market. (AHAM, 
No. 2285 at p. 31) AHAM also stated agreement with DOE's determination 
to screen out a subset of low-standby-loss electronic controls that use 
``automatic power-down'' because they may result in the loss in the 
utility of the continuous clock display for combined cooking products, 
such as ranges. (Id.)
    AHAM disagreed with DOE's continued inclusion of low-standby loss 
electronic controls such as SMPS and urged DOE to screen out low-
standby-loss electronic controls as a technology option because such 
controls ``switch the current at high frequencies'' according to DOE, 
and ranges and cooking tops connected to a ground fault circuit 
interrupter (``GFCI'') and operating at high frequencies contribute to 
nuisance tripping, where power is removed from the appliance, even when 
no electrical hazard exists. (Id. at pp. 32-35) AHAM requested that DOE 
use its expertise and resources to properly investigate this 
technological incompatibility and advised that if DOE

[[Page 11453]]

continues to consider low-standby-loss electronic controls as a 
feasible technology option, the existing nuisance tripping problems 
will get worse. (Id.)
    Strauch commented that SMPSs are not as reliable as linear power 
supplies, pointing to MIL-HDBK-217 \33\ and the Bellcore/Telcordia 
reliability guide \34\ as evidence. (Strauch, No. 2263 at pp. 2-3) 
Strauch commented that energy efficiency requirements are degrading 
lifetimes due to more complex electronic controls, SMPSs, and light-
weighting. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ DOE interprets MIL-HDBK-217 as referring to Military 
Handbook: Reliability Prediction of Electronic Equipment, last 
updated in 1995. Available at global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_name=MIL-HDBK-217&item_s_key=00058764.
    \34\ DOE interprets the Bellcore/Telcordia reliability guide as 
referring to SR-332, Reliability Prediction Procedure for Electronic 
Equipment, last updated in 2011. Available at telecom-info.njdepot.ericsson.net/site-cgi/ido/docs.cgi?ID=SEARCH&DOCUMENT=SR-332#ORD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE emphasizes that it only considered design options that are 
already demonstrated in cooking products available on the market. DOE 
is aware of the potential for ``nuisance tripping'' of GFCI circuit 
protectors by high-frequency components such as induction elements. 
However, DOE understands that nuisance tripping can generally be 
mitigated through the use of best practices for reducing leakage 
current, such as minimizing electrical cable lengths and ensuring that 
filtered and unfiltered cables are separated to whatever extent 
possible to reduce leakage current. Additionally, optimizing the 
variable-frequency controller power filter to reduce total leakage 
current to levels below the GFCI detection limits can further prevent 
GFCI tripping. To the extent that the use of additional electronic 
components is needed in conjunction with the use of design options with 
high-frequency components (e.g., induction elements), and to the extent 
that such additional electronic components are provided in electric 
cooking tops currently on the market that make use of such design 
options, DOE's teardown analysis captures any additional cost 
associated with such components.
    DOE notes that despite the potential for nuisance tripping, a wide 
range of appliances on the market today, including cooking products, 
implement variable-frequency drives in their designs. The inclusion of 
these variable-frequency drive designs in units on the market leads DOE 
to conclude that they do not have a significant impact on the consumer 
utility of these products.
    ONE Gas commented that DOE should evaluate the potential health and 
safety issues associated with consumer conventional cooking product 
minimum efficiency standards by addressing electromagnetic field 
emission hazards from induction cooking. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 9-
10)
    It is not within DOE's purview to regulate health and safety. In 
this direct final rule analysis, DOE has analyzed induction as a 
technology option insofar as it is already widely available on the 
market. Although DOE does not regulate electromagnetic field emissions, 
the Federal Communications Commission requires industrial, scientific, 
and medical equipment that emits electromagnetic energy on frequencies 
within the radio frequency spectrum, including induction cooking tops, 
to comply with its regulations at 47 CFR part 18 to prevent harmful 
interference to authorized radio communication services. Additionally, 
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration specifies performance standards 
for microwave and radio frequency emitting products, but coverage is 
limited to microwave ovens and thus these standards do not apply to 
consumer conventional cooking products, including induction cooking 
tops. 21 CFR 1030.10.
    For this direct final rule, DOE used the screening for electric 
cooking top technology options considered in the February 2023 SNOPR 
analysis.
b. Gas Cooking Tops
    For gas cooking tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE screened out 
catalytic burners, radiant gas burners, reduced excess air at burner, 
and reflective surfaces. 88 FR 6818, 6842.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE stated that it is aware of a wide 
range of optimized burner and grate designs on the market, some of 
which may reduce the consumer utility associated with HIR burners and 
continuous cast-iron grates. Id. In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 
screened out any optimized burner and grate designs that would reduce 
consumer utility by only including in its analysis gas cooking tops 
that include at least one HIR burner and continuous cast-iron grates. 
Id.
    DOE sought comment on its screening analysis for gas cooking tops 
and whether any additional technology options should be screened out on 
the basis of any of the screening criteria in the February 2023 SNOPR. 
Id. Section V.B.4 of this document summarizes comments that DOE 
received regarding the utility provided by certain characteristics of 
gas cooking tops.
    The National Propane Gas Association (``NPGA'') commented that it 
agrees with the American Public Gas Association (``APGA'') and the 
American Gas Association's (``AGA'') comments, in which APGA and AGA 
agreed with DOE's determination that no new standards were justified. 
(NPGA, No. 2270 at pp. 2-3, 7-8) NPGA commented that it agrees with 
AHAM's prior comments on this rulemaking, in which AHAM stated that no 
significant changes have occurred to justify new standards since the 
April 2009 Final Rule that determined energy conservation standards for 
consumer conventional cooking products were not justified. (Id.) NPGA 
commented that DOE fails to articulate or demonstrate technological 
changes for gas cooking tops that would achieve higher efficiencies 
since the April 2009 Final Rule and that would result in significant 
conservation of energy as stated by EPCA. (Id.) AGA et al.\35\ echoed 
these sentiments in response to the August 2023 NODA. (AGA et al., No. 
10112 at pp. 3, 11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ ``AGA et al.'' refers to a joint comment from AGA, APGA, 
NOGA, Spire Inc., Spire Missouri Inc., and Spire Alabama Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AGA commented that DOE's screening analysis is inconsistent and 
inadequate for use as the primary factor determining the minimum 
efficiency level for gas cooking tops. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 43-45) AGA 
commented that gas cooking top design requires a complex engineering 
process to ensure the consumer has a product that meets all safety 
standards, meets its required purpose (to cook food), is reliable, long 
lasting, and easy to maintain and clean, but DOE's language about 
improving product efficiency through ``optimized burner/improved 
grates'' is inadequate. (Id.) AGA commented that DOE suggests that 
realigning gas burners or moving the gas burners closer to the cooking 
utensils will optimize burners, but this raises concerns, such as the 
impact on the combustion process, creating hot spots on cooking 
utensils and electronic ignition systems, cleaning, and addressing 
changes in fuel gas supply (for example, switching from natural gas to 
propane). (Id.) AGA commented that more evaluation must be documented 
before DOE's assumptions can be verified as ``efficiency 
improvements.'' (Id.)
    AGA et al. commented that gas cooking tops must meet national 
consensus safety standards for proper operation (i.e., proper 
combustion under gas pressure variation) and burner characteristics 
(i.e., burner primary air openings, burner port sizing, variety of 
input rates, balanced heat distribution on cooking vessels, 
aesthetics). (AGA et al., No. 10112 at pp. 10-11) AGA et al. commented 
that the features that DOE

[[Page 11454]]

identified as being responsible for increased efficiency (i.e., grate 
weight, flame angle, distance from burner ports) should not be mandated 
which would limit the freedom of the gas cooking top engineers to 
design products that are safe and fit consumer needs. (Id.)
    ONE Gas commented that DOE should evaluate the potential health and 
safety issues associated with consumer conventional cooking product 
minimum efficiency standards by addressing burn and cooking fire 
hazards, which are likely to differ across design options and fuels, 
and the potential magnitudes of such hazards as DOE projections of 
market share shifts would suggest. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 9-10) ONE 
Gas commented that these potential safety and health hazards fit well 
within DOE's role in minimum efficiency standards rulemaking. (Id.)
    Sub-Zero Group, Inc. (``Sub-Zero'') commented that burner spacing 
between grate and vessel must be greater for HIR burners to meet 
critical performance and safety requirements; specifically, heat 
distribution and reduction of carbon monoxide. (Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at 
p. 11) Sub-Zero commented that reducing burner spacing between burner 
flame and testing vessel can increase efficiency, but flame 
impingement/contact with the grate and vessel causes flame quenching 
(cooling), which directly leads to an increase in carbon monoxide 
levels and other combustion by-products. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that moving the burner closer to the cookware--as 
anticipated by DOE's ``optimize burners and grates'' technology 
option--should be screened out based on a resulting reduction in 
consumer utility and safety. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 22-23) AHAM 
presented a boil-time graph showing that water can be brought to a boil 
more efficiently, with a lower Btu/h, by moving the burner closer to 
the cookware, but this design will be essentially useless when cooking 
foods that require a spectrum of heat inputs as closer burners are 
unable to adequately reduce heat input. (Id.) AHAM commented that 
testing by one of its members showed that food cooked with only mid-
range input rate burners takes longer to cook and that mid-input rate 
burners, for some foods, provide a lower quality of cooking than HIR 
burners. (Id.) AHAM commented that consumers will lose utility 
associated with quality of cooking and speed of cooking as 
manufacturers are forced to homogenize their products and provide mid-
range burners to meet the standard. (Id.)
    AHAM recommended that DOE not rely on European designs as it 
evaluates whether ``burner and grate optimization'' is possible while 
also complying with safety standards such as combustion limits as 
European safety standard EN 30-1-1 ``Domestic cooking appliances burner 
gas--Part 1-1: Safety--General'' generally has higher CO limits than 
allowed in North America per American National Standards Institute 
(``ANSI'') ``Household Cooking Gas Appliances'' (``ANSI Z21.1''), which 
results in limits on-grate weight, flame angle, and distance from the 
burner to the cookware. (Id. at p. 37)
    AHAM commented that DOE did not provide sufficient descriptions of 
the cooking tops in its test sample to allow AHAM to confirm that the 
units in the test sample do not include any proprietary designs, 
components, elements, materials, or other intellectual property. (AHAM, 
No. 10116 at p. 10) AHAM asserted that DOE has deviated from the data 
quality standards outlined in the Process Rule. (Id. at p. 12) AHAM 
specifically asserted that DOE failed to eliminate problematic design 
options, as identified by commenters; did not use transparent and 
robust analytical methods; and did not evaluate safety pertaining to 
the updated efficiency levels for gas cooking tops. (Id.) AHAM 
commented that DOE should review these deviations from data quality 
before issuing any final rule. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that, per EPCA, DOE should not consider consumer-
valued features and/or performance attributes as technology options. 
(Id. at pp. 12-13) AHAM commented that DOE does not have the authority 
to establish standards that would require removal of such features and 
attributes. (Id.)
    AHAM asserted that over the course of this rulemaking, DOE has 
countered itself several times regarding which EPCA-protected features 
and performance could be eliminated or altered to achieve energy 
reductions. (Id. at pp. 16-19) AHAM commented that, under EPCA, DOE 
should not consider the removal or reduction of significant consumer-
valued features and performance attributes as technology options for 
improving efficiency and that any technology options that would have 
that impact should be screened out. (Id.)
    As discussed, DOE has performed extensive research to evaluate 
technology changes that have occurred since the April 2009 Final Rule, 
and notes that updated analysis depends not only on changes in the 
available technologies, but also on the relative costs and benefits of 
implementing them.
    DOE acknowledges the safety considerations associated with burner 
spacing, emissions, and fire hazards, but reiterates that the only 
optimized burner and grate designs evaluated in this direct final rule 
analysis were those found through DOE's testing and analysis of a full 
range of products available on the U.S. market to be implemented in 
products already. DOE notes that ANSI Z21.1, required by many building 
codes in the United States, specifies safety requirements for all 
consumer gas cooking products.
    In response to stakeholder comments that optimizing burner and 
grate designs would reduce consumer utility, DOE has only included in 
its direct final rule engineering analysis gas cooking tops that 
include multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates. DOE 
further addresses comments related to the impact of the standards on 
cooking top utility in section V.B.4 of this document.
    For this direct final rule, DOE screened out from further 
consideration catalytic burners, radiant gas burners, reduced excess 
air at burner, and reflective surfaces for gas cooking tops, consistent 
with the February 2023 SNOPR analysis.
c. Conventional Ovens
    For the same reasons discussed in the SNOPR published on September 
2, 2016 (``September 2016 SNOPR''), DOE screened out added insulation, 
bi-radiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no oven door window, optimized 
burner and cavity design, and reflective surfaces from further analysis 
for conventional ovens in the February 2023 SNOPR. 88 FR 6818, 6843.
    DOE also stated that it recognizes that the estimates for the 
energy savings associated with improved insulation, improved door seals 
and reduced vent rate may vary depending on the test procedure, and 
thus screened out these technology options from further analysis of 
conventional ovens in the February 2023 SNOPR. Id. DOE stated that it 
will reevaluate the energy savings associated with these technology 
options if it considers performance standards in a future rulemaking. 
Id.
    For the same reasons as discussed above for electric smooth element 
cooking tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE also screened out the use 
of automatic power-down low-standby-loss electronic controls. Id. DOE 
stated that it is aware that the use of automatic power-down low-
standby-loss electronic controls may negatively impact product utility. 
Id. In particular, the use of automatic power-down low-standby-loss 
electronic controls may result in a loss in the utility of the 
continuous clock display for ovens.

[[Page 11455]]

However, it should be noted that the other low-standby-loss electronic 
controls such as SMPSs were still analyzed.
    DOE continued to seek comment on the technology options for 
conventional ovens screened out in the February 2023 SNOPR. Id. DOE 
sought comment on its screening analysis for conventional ovens and 
whether any additional technology options should be screened out on the 
basis of any of the screening criteria in the February 2023 SNOPR.
    AHAM noted that additional high frequency power use beyond SMPSs in 
an oven, such as low standby loss electronic controls, will exacerbate 
GFCI nuisance tripping issues. (Id. at p. 38)
    As discussed previously, DOE is aware of the potential for 
``nuisance tripping'' of GFCI circuit protectors by high-frequency 
components such as low standby loss electronic controls. However, DOE 
understands that nuisance tripping can generally be mitigated through 
the use of best practices. To the extent that the use of additional 
electronic components is needed in conjunction with the use of design 
options with high-frequency components (e.g., low standby loss 
electronic controls), and to the extent that such additional electronic 
components are provided in electric cooking tops currently on the 
market that make use of such design options, DOE's teardown analysis 
captures any additional cost associated with such components.
    Strauch commented that DOE should not impose forced convection for 
conventional ovens, because many consumers may never or rarely use this 
feature. (Strauch, No. 2263 at p. 3)
    AHAM reiterated its comments made in response to the September 2016 
SNOPR that forced convection should be screened out because the motor 
wattage could negate any potential energy savings. (Id.) AHAM further 
commented that convection is not appropriate for cooking all food 
types, noting that any covered food loads will not benefit from this 
technology. (Id.)
    DOE notes that the design option referred to in the February 2023 
SNOPR as ``forced convection'' corresponds to a design option wherein 
the conventional oven offers a convection mode to the user. Under this 
design option, the user is not required to use the convection mode, for 
instance when cooking covered food loads or cakes which do not benefit 
from convection mode. However, the user would benefit from using the 
convection mode when baking food loads that benefit from an even 
distribution of heat, such as roasting vegetables or baking pies, and 
because the use of convection mode results in lower energy use, as 
measured by the conventional oven test procedure finalized in the test 
procedure final rule published on July 2, 2015 (``July 2015 TP Final 
Rule'').
    However, to ensure full clarity regarding this design option and to 
reflect the fact that the use of convection mode would not be required 
by users, in this direct final rule, DOE is changing the name of this 
design option to ``convection mode capability.'' In the following 
sections where DOE evaluates convection mode capability as a 
prescriptive design standard, the prescriptive design standard under 
evaluation is a requirement for conventional ovens to offer a 
convection mode.
    AHAM also reiterated its comments made in response to the September 
2016 SNOPR stating that oven separators should be screened out because 
they are not a widely available feature. (Id.) AHAM commented that this 
design option essentially relies on consumer use of the feature and 
without knowing whether consumers do or will use the oven separator, it 
is impossible to know whether the energy savings would be realized in 
the field. (Id.)
    Unless a technology option has proprietary protection or represents 
a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, the fact that 
oven separators are not widely available has no bearing on the 
screening criteria analyzed by DOE and outlined in the Process Rule. 
DOE has determined that multiple manufacturers offer oven separators 
and therefore determines that oven separators do not represent a 
proprietary technology. AHAM did not provide any information that 
corresponds to DOE's screening criteria for technology options, and as 
such DOE is retaining the oven separator technology in this direct 
final rule.
    AHAM reiterated other comments it made in response to the September 
2016 SNOPR screening analysis for ovens, including: (1) improved door 
seals should be screened out, as further improving door seals could 
lead to a loss of performance due to a loss of sufficient airflow; and 
(2) reduced vent rates should be screened out as energy gains are 
negligible and DOE is relying on very old product designs and a test 
procedure DOE has repealed. (Id.) AHAM stated agreement with DOE's 
screening out of the other technology options. (Id. at pp. 38-39)
    For this direct final rule, DOE screened out from further 
consideration the same conventional oven technology options as in the 
February 2023 SNOPR analysis. DOE notes that the concerns expressed by 
AHAM regarding technology options for conventional ovens are not 
applicable at the adopted standard levels as specified in the Joint 
Agreement.
2. Remaining Technologies
    Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that 
all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 of 
this document met all screening criteria to be examined further as 
design options in DOE's direct final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did 
not screen out the technology options listed in Table IV.7.

[[Page 11456]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.014

    DOE determined that these technology options are technologically 
feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in 
commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds 
that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening 
criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do 
not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product 
availability, health, or safety). For additional details, see chapter 4 
of the direct final rule TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the 
relationship between the efficiency and cost of consumer conventional 
cooking products. There are two elements to consider in the engineering 
analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the 
``efficiency analysis'') and the determination of product cost at each 
efficiency level (i.e., the ``cost analysis''). In determining the 
performance of higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies 
and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening 
analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as 
well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above 
the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the 
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
    DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy 
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed 
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach), 
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated 
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e., 
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on 
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on 
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that 
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through 
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the 
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that 
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on 
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended 
using the design option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill'' 
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency 
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the ``max-tech'' level (particularly 
in cases where the ``max-tech'' level exceeds the maximum efficiency 
level currently available on the market).
    In defining the efficiency levels for this direct final rule, DOE 
considered comments it had received in response to the efficiency 
levels proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR.
    For this direct final rule, DOE is adopting a design-option 
approach supported by testing and supplemented by reverse engineering 
(i.e., physical teardowns and testing of existing products in the 
market) to identify the incremental cost and efficiency improvement 
associated with each design option or design-option combination. The 
design-option approach is appropriate for consumer conventional cooking 
products, given the lack of certification data to determine the market 
distribution of existing products and to identify efficiency level 
``clusters'' that already exist on the market. Following the request 
for information (``RFI'') published on February 12, 2014 (``February 
2014 RFI'') and the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE also conducted 
interviews with manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products 
to develop a deeper understanding of the various combinations of design 
options used to increase product efficiency and their associated 
manufacturing costs.
    DOE conducted testing and reverse engineering teardowns on products 
available on the market. Because there are no performance-based energy 
conservation standards or energy reporting requirements for consumer 
conventional cooking products, DOE selected test units based on 
performance-related features and technologies advertised in product 
literature.
    For each product class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a 
reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from 
potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The 
baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of 
a product typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). 
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy 
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline 
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
    For each product class for both conventional cooking tops and 
conventional ovens, DOE analyzed several efficiency levels. As part of 
DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest 
efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE also defines a 
``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum possible 
efficiency for a given product.

[[Page 11457]]

a. Conventional Cooking Tops
Testing
    DOE's test sample for this direct final rule was originally tested 
in support of the February 2023 SNOPR and February 2023 NODA and 
included 13 electric smooth element cooking tops, the electric smooth 
element cooking top portion of 7 conventional ranges, 16 gas cooking 
tops, and the gas cooking top portion of 8 conventional ranges for a 
total of 44 conventional cooking tops covering all of the product 
classes considered in this analysis. The test unit characteristics and 
appendix I1 test results are available in chapter 5 of the TSD for this 
direct final rule. DOE's analysis did not include any energy 
consumption associated with downdraft venting systems.
    For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE developed performance-based 
baseline efficiency levels for consumer conventional cooking tops using 
the measured energy consumption of units in the DOE test sample. 88 FR 
6818, 6844. DOE determined the cooking top IAEC for each cooking top in 
the test sample based on the water heating test procedure adopted in 
the August 2022 TP Final Rule. Id.
    AGA et al. stated that it would be helpful for stakeholders to have 
information regarding which cooking top units included in DOE's 
analysis are currently available on the market. (AGA et al., No. 766 at 
pp. 3-4) AGA et al. requested that DOE provide this information through 
the unit identification (i.e., the ``SNOPR Unit ID'') for each cooking 
top product included in DOE's analysis, which would allow stakeholders 
to confirm that DOE's results accurately reflect the product 
information. (Id.)
    NPGA asserted that DOE is unable to confirm that the products 
evaluated remain on the market, as testing occurred prior to April 2022 
and products were purchased prior to May 2018. (NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 8) 
NPGA asserted that it is not clear whether the tested products remain 
available on the U.S. market. (Id.)
    Spire Inc. (``Spire'') asserted that the sample of gas cooking 
products tested by DOE is small and outdated and that there is no basis 
to conclude that the products tested are representative of the market. 
(Spire, No. 2710 at pp. 5-7) Spire further commented that the gas 
cooking tops in DOE's test sample products were likely manufactured 
between 2014 and 2018, based on their purchase dates. (Id.) Spire 
stated its concern that DOE has not identified the tested products that 
are still on the market. (Id.)
    Whirlpool Corporation (``Whirlpool'') commented that DOE cannot 
rely on data gathered from outdated and unavailable products that do 
not represent the features, characteristics, and performance standards 
consumers expect from gas cooking products. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at pp. 
9-10) Whirlpool commented that DOE wrongly assumes that newer models 
are similar to the tested older models; Whirlpool added that its own 
catalog experiences substantial turnover in the course of just 5 to 10 
years and its older models would likely perform differently than its 
newer ones under DOE's test procedure. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that DOE's test sample comprises several old models, 
some of which are no longer commercially available and therefore would 
not be considered technologically feasible per sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 
7(b)(1) of the Process Rule. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 8-9) AHAM commented 
that DOE's continued use of this old test sample conflicts with DOE's 
statement that it considers commercially available products or working 
prototypes in its evaluation. (Id.) AHAM stated disagreement with DOE's 
statements in the February 2023 NODA that if a product was on the 
market, it can be included in the analysis--that could be the case if 
it can be shown that the model was replaced with a similar model that 
retains similar efficiency performance and similar technology options. 
(Id.) But, AHAM added, if a product is removed from the market and no 
longer commercially available, it should be eliminated from the sample 
because it may have been removed for reliability or quality issues or 
consumer dissatisfaction. (Id.) AHAM commented that without data that 
indicates why a particular model that is no longer commercially 
available should remain in the test sample, DOE should remove the old 
models from its test sample and ensure that the test sample informing 
this analysis consists only of commercially available products (or 
working prototypes). (Id.)
    Although other models in DOE's test sample may no longer be on the 
market, DOE notes that manufacturers of major home appliances update 
their model numbers regularly, in some cases as frequently as every 1 
to 2 years. In DOE's experience of regularly monitoring the market for 
major home appliances, including consumer conventional cooking 
products, the model number changes that occur from year to year in most 
cases do not reflect technological changes that would impact the 
product's measured energy consumption. Regardless, test results for 
models that are discontinued over the course of a DOE rulemaking 
timeline remain applicable in conducting the analysis in accordance 
with EPCA requirements, because such models incorporate technologically 
feasible design options that manufacturers may use to achieve the 
corresponding efficiency levels in commercial products.
    DOE cannot comment on whether the units in the AHAM test sample are 
available on the market because AHAM did not provide DOE with model 
number information. However, at the time of the direct final rule 
analysis, 15 of the 30 units in the expanded test sample for which DOE 
has model information and that meet the standards finalized in this 
direct final rule, are available for purchase; DOE notes that 7 of 
these 15 models have multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron 
grates.
    AHAM commented it found confusing the addition to DOE's test sample 
of three new gas cooking top units that did not follow the same 
criteria as in its February 2023 SNOPR analysis and the conflicting 
statements and methodology DOE employed in the February 2023 NODA (and 
in the media). (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 53-54)
    As stated in the February 2023 NODA, the additional information was 
intended to clarify the analysis. 88 FR 12603, 12604. Specifically, DOE 
provided the IAEC values for the three additional units to substantiate 
its statement that gas cooking tops that do not include HIR burners or 
continuous cast-iron grates have efficiencies higher than the EL 2 
level that DOE defined in the February 2023 SNOPR. Id. at 88 FR 12605.
    Further, DOE published the August 2023 NODA to provide an updated 
analysis of the gas cooking top market in light of the new data 
provided by stakeholders in response to the February 2023 SNOPR and 
February 2023 NODA.
    AHAM requested information on whether DOE has additional data for 
the units in its test sample that were tested as part of the test 
procedure rulemaking and, if so, AHAM requested that DOE provide these 
additional test results. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 9-10) AHAM commented 
that such data could illuminate the relevance of test variation to 
DOE's standards selection. (Id.)
    In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE determined that its test 
results demonstrate the repeatability and reproducibility of the 
finalized test procedure. 87 FR 51492, 51497. To the extent that any 
additional tests beyond those used in this direct final rule analysis 
were conducted on a given cooking top, the results were used in the 
analysis for the August 2022 TP Final

[[Page 11458]]

Rule. Test reports for these tests are available in the docket for that 
rulemaking.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Available at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023/document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NPGA commented that it does not believe DOE's testing conducted in 
support of the February 2023 SNOPR can be relied upon when it was 
conducted prior to publishing the August 2022 TP Final Rule and the 
February 2023 Correcting Amendments. (NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 8) NPGA 
stated that by relying on testing methods adopted prior to these 
changes, DOE's foundation for its test method must be called into 
question. (Id.)
    As discussed, all conventional cooking top testing conducted by DOE 
in support of the February 2023 SNOPR, and of this direct final rule 
was conducted according to the test procedure at appendix I1, as 
finalized. Despite some of the testing occurring prior to the 
publication of the August 2022 TP Final Rule, all testing was confirmed 
to be compliant with appendix I1 as published prior to its 
incorporation in the analysis. DOE further notes that neither the 
errors and omissions nor the corrections in the February 2023 
Correcting Amendments affected the substance of the rulemaking, or any 
conclusions reached in support of the August 2022 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 
7846.
    Furthermore, as discussed in the August 2023 NODA and later in this 
document, DOE received additional stakeholder test data which DOE 
incorporated into its analysis as part of the ``expanded data set,'' 
which was used as the basis for the updated efficiency levels presented 
in the August 2023 NODA and analyzed in this direct final rule.
    AHAM requested that DOE explain why certain gas cooking tops in 
DOE's test sample have different IAEC values in the August 2023 NODA 
compared to the February 2023 SNOPR. (AHAM, No. 10116 at pp. 4-5) AHAM 
commented that DOE should indicate if the updated analysis in the 
August 2023 NODA was based on the updated IAEC values. (Id.) AHAM 
requested that DOE publish a response on the docket, prior to a final 
rule, as to whether the updated IAEC values are a result of test 
variation, error, or additional testing, and provide opportunity for 
stakeholder comment. (Id.)
    DOE appreciates AHAM's comment and notes that as part of its review 
of the engineering analysis for gas cooking tops prior to the 
publication of the August 2023 NODA, DOE corrected a data processing 
error that occurred in calculating the annual energy consumption 
(``AEC'') of seven units in its test sample. At the time of the August 
2023 NODA, DOE published the full expanded test sample for gas cooking 
tops, including this calculation error correction. DOE confirms that 
the analysis for the August 2023 NODA and for this direct final rule 
was based upon the IAEC values published in the August 2023 NODA.
    AGA et al. commented that the standard proposed in February 2023 
SNOPR was based on limited product testing unsupported by any other 
existing body of relevant product efficiency data. (AGA et al., No. 
10112 at p. 6) AGA et al. commented that, given the impact of the 
expanded data set on the baseline level analyzed in the August 2023 
NODA, as compared to the February 2023 SNOPR, it is unclear how an even 
further expanded data set would impact the efficiency levels for gas 
cooking tops. (Id.)
    DOE has performed extensive testing in support of the energy 
conservation standards for conventional cooking tops. Furthermore, 
DOE's analysis for this direct final rule takes into account all 
additional stakeholder test data received in response to the February 
2023 SNOPR. DOE determines that its expanded test data set is a 
representative sample and sufficient to support its analysis for the 
standards adopted in this direct final rule.
Electric Cooking Tops
    The Joint Agreement recommended a standard level for both electric 
smooth element cooking top product classes of 207 kWh/year that is 
equivalent to the IAEC at EL 1 defined in the August 2023 NODA and 
February 2023 SNOPR.
    The baseline IAEC in this direct final rule was initially 
established in the February 2023 SNOPR. To establish the baseline IAEC 
values for electric cooking tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE set 
the baseline cooking top IAEC equal to the sum of the maximum cooking 
top AEC observed in the dataset and the maximum annual combined low-
power mode energy consumption (``ETLP'') observed in the 
dataset. 88 FR 6818, 6844.
    DOE then reviewed the AEC and ETLP values for the 
electric smooth element cooking tops in its test sample and identified 
three higher efficiency levels that can be achieved without sacrificing 
clock functionality. Id. at 88 FR 6845.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE defined EL 1 for electric smooth 
element cooking tops based on the low-standby-loss electronic controls 
design option. Id. As discussed above, DOE defined the baseline 
efficiency assuming the highest AEC would be paired with the highest 
ETLP observed in its test sample. Id. In the February 2023 
SNOPR, DOE stated that it is aware of many methods employed by 
manufacturers to achieve lower ETLP, including by changing 
from a linear power supply to an SMPS, by dimming the control screen's 
default brightness, by allowing the clock functionality to turn off 
after a period of inactivity, and by removing the clock from the 
cooking top altogether. Id. DOE defined EL 1 using the lowest measured 
ETLP among the units in its test sample with clock 
functionality, paired with the baseline AEC, to avoid any potential 
loss of utility from setting a standard based on a unit without clock 
functionality. Id.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE defined EL 2 for electric smooth 
element cooking tops using the lowest measured AEC (highest efficiency) 
among radiant cooking tops in its sample and the same ETLP 
as EL 1. Id. DOE noted that, this AEC value can also be reached by 
units using induction technology. Id.
    To determine the highest measured efficiency for electric smooth 
element cooking tops, ``max tech'' or EL 3 in the February 2023 SNOPR, 
DOE calculated the sum of the lowest measured AEC in its test sample of 
electric smooth element cooking tops, which represented induction 
technology, and the same ETLP as EL 1. Id.
    Table IV.8 shows the efficiency levels for electric smooth element 
cooking tops proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR.

[[Page 11459]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.015

    DOE sought comment on the methodology and results for the proposed 
baseline and incremental efficiency levels for electric cooking tops. 
Id. at 88 FR 6844-6845.
    Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (``Samsung'') supported DOE's 
methodology for analyzing AEC and ETLP separately when 
determining the efficiency levels for baseline electric smooth element 
cooking tops. (Samsung, No. 2291 at p. 2) Samsung supported DOE's 
proposed efficiency levels for electric cooking tops. (Id.) Samsung 
commented that standby power is typically consumed by specific features 
(e.g., clocks, timers, electronic displays), and that because DOE 
identified low-standby-loss electronic controls for EL 1, it is 
reasonable to assume that manufacturers will use the lowest level of 
ETLP to meet EL 1. (Id.) Samsung commented that EL 1 also 
avoids consumer utility loss by maintaining the clock functionality. 
(Id.)
    AHAM commented that DOE's method for determining the baseline 
efficiency levels for conventional cooking tops is flawed because it 
adds active-mode energy use and standby-mode energy use from different 
units, which is not a representative approach. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 
30-31) AHAM commented that product design is holistic and theoretical 
energy use should not be assumed based on tests from different units as 
was DOE's method. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE should follow its 
usual, more representative methodology of selecting the least efficient 
single unit, despite the flaws resulting from the methodology's basis 
on a test sample. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE can minimize this 
inherent flaw by ensuring its test sample is as broad and 
representative of the market as possible through the inclusion of 
AHAM's data. (Id.) AHAM added that DOE should rectify the lack of 
representativeness of its current sample, even with AHAM's test data 
included, before proceeding to a final rule. (Id.)
    DOE has determined that adding active-mode energy use and standby-
mode energy use from different units to determine baseline efficiency 
levels for conventional cooking tops is warranted in order to evaluate 
the most conservative baseline efficiency level so as to allow 
manufacturers to preserve the utility associated with clock 
functionality.
    AHAM stated its opposition to DOE's proposed standard for smooth 
electric cooking tops and added that it would oppose any proposed 
standard more stringent than DOE's proposed level. (Id. at pp. 42-43) 
However, AHAM commented that it does not oppose standards for these 
products so long as the standard takes into account test procedure 
variation and the reality that manufacturers will not certify products 
at the tested values upon which DOE bases its analysis. (Id.) AHAM 
suggested that DOE evaluate a gap-fill level for electric smooth 
element cooking tops that is between EL 1 and the baseline, and 
requested that DOE account for test variation and conservative rating 
by applying an additional 5 percent to the evaluated efficiency level. 
(Id.)
    In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE determined that its test 
results demonstrate the repeatability and reproducibility of the 
finalized test procedure. 87 FR 51492, 51497. DOE notes that although 
it is not including a ``buffer'' in its analysis, nothing in DOE's 
analysis prevents manufacturers from choosing to design a buffer into 
their own products' rated values.
    Regarding AHAM's suggestion that DOE evaluate a gap-fill level, DOE 
is not aware of any design options that would justify such an 
efficiency level.
    As discussed, DOE received additional electric smooth element 
cooking top test data from AHAM and the Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company (``PG&E'') in response to the February 2023 SNOPR. In the 
August 2023 NODA, DOE stated that these additional data are consistent 
with DOE's tentative determination in the February 2023 SNOPR regarding 
efficiency levels for these products. 88 FR 50810, 50811. Therefore, in 
the August 2023 NODA, DOE maintained the efficiency levels for electric 
smooth element cooking tops that were proposed in the February 2023 
SNOPR. Id.
    DOE sought comment on the efficiency levels for electric smooth 
element cooking tops in the August 2023 NODA. Id. DOE did not receive 
any such comments.
    For the reasons discussed in the February 2023 SNOPR and August 
2023 NODA, and consistent with the recommendations in the Joint 
Agreement, DOE analyzed for this direct final rule the efficiency 
levels for both electric smooth element cooking top product classes 
that were proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR, as shown in Table IV.9.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.016


[[Page 11460]]


Gas Cooking Tops
    The Joint Agreement recommended a standard level for both gas 
cooking top product classes of 1,770 kBtu/year.
    As discussed, to establish the baseline IAEC values for cooking 
tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE set the baseline cooking top 
integrated annual energy consumption (i.e., IAEC) equal to the sum of 
the maximum cooking top active annual energy consumption (i.e., AEC) 
observed in the dataset for the analyzed product class and the maximum 
combined low-power mode annual energy consumption (i.e., 
ETLP) observed in the dataset for the analyzed product 
class. 88 FR 6818, 6844.
    DOE noted that the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops evaluated 
in the February 2023 SNOPR would replace the current prescriptive 
standards for gas cooking tops which prohibits the use of a constant 
burning pilot light. Id. As such, DOE's proposed standard for gas 
cooking tops would be only a performance standard. DOE noted that 
constant burning pilot lights consume approximately 2,000 kBtu/year and 
even the proposed baseline considered efficiency level of 1,775 kBtu/
year for gas cooking tops would not be achievable by products if they 
were to incorporate a constant burning pilot light. Id. DOE further 
notes that the updated baseline efficiency level of 1,900 kBtu/year for 
gas cooking tops considered in the August 2023 NODA, as described later 
in this section, would also not be achievable by products incorporating 
a constant burning pilot light. Therefore, a new performance standard 
for gas cooking tops would preclude the possibility of any product 
designs with constant burning pilot lights. The existing prescriptive 
standard would remain in place until the compliance date of the new and 
amended standards finalized in this direct final rule.
    For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE considered efficiency levels 
associated with optimized burner and grate design, but only insofar as 
the efficiency level was achievable with at least one HIR burner \37\ 
and continuous cast-iron grates. 88 FR 6818, 6845. DOE stated that it 
is aware that some methods used by gas cooking top manufacturers to 
achieve lower AEC can result in a smaller number of HIR burners. Id. 
HIR burners provide unique consumer utility and allow consumers to 
perform high heat cooking activities such as searing and stir-frying. 
DOE stated that it is also aware that some consumers derive utility 
from continuous cast-iron grates, such as the ability to use heavy 
pans, or to shift cookware between burners without needing to lift 
them. Id. Because of this, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE defined the 
efficiency levels for gas cooking tops such that all efficiency levels 
are achievable with at least one HIR burner and continuous cast-iron 
grates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ As discussed, DOE defines a high input rate burner as a 
burner with an input rate greater than or equal to 14,000 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's testing showed that energy use was correlated to burner 
design and cooking top configuration (e.g., grate weight, flame angle, 
distance from burner ports to the cooking surface) and could be reduced 
by optimizing the design of the burner and grate system. Id. DOE 
reviewed the test data for the gas cooking tops in its test sample and 
identified two efficiency levels associated with improving the burner 
and grate design that corresponded to different design criteria. DOE 
defined EL 1 and EL 2 for gas cooking tops using the same 
ETLP as used for the baseline efficiency level.
    Table IV.10 shows the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops 
evaluated in the February 2023 SNOPR. Id. at 88 FR 6846.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.017

    DOE sought comment on the methodology and results for the proposed 
baseline and incremental efficiency levels for gas cooking tops in the 
February 2023 SNOPR. Id. at 88 FR 6844-6845.
    AGA et al. requested more information regarding DOE's proposal to 
limit the EL 2 level to 1,204 kBtu/year, including the specific design 
changes or enhancements to the gas cooking tops needed to attain EL 2, 
the data and methodology used to propose EL 2 as the max-tech 
efficiency level for gas cooking tops, and DOE's justification for the 
proposed minimum requirement of 1,204 kBtu/year. (AGA et al., No. 766 
at p. 3)
    As noted in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE's testing showed that 
energy use was correlated to burner design and cooking top 
configuration (e.g., grate weight, flame angle, distance from burner 
ports to the cooking surface) and could be reduced by optimizing the 
design of the burner and grate system. DOE reviewed the test data for 
the gas cooking tops in its test sample and identified two efficiency 
levels associated with improving the burner and grate design that 
corresponded to different design criteria. 88 FR 6818, 6845. The full 
dataset for gas cooking tops may be found in chapter 5 of the direct 
final rule TSD.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ DOE provided this response to AGA et al. on April 13, 2023. 
See docket item No. 1069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AGA asserted that the February 2023 SNOPR exceeds DOE's authority 
by effectively imposing design requirements because cooking tops with 
more than one HIR burner cannot comply with the proposal and there is 
no real evidence that products with even one HIR burner and cast-iron 
grates could satisfy the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 
based on issues with the test results. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 26-28) AGA 
commented that EPCA allows DOE to issue a performance standard or a 
design requirement, but not both. (Id.) AGA asserted that the February 
2023 SNOPR's limitation on the number and types of burners is both a 
design and a performance standard and is therefore unlawful. (Id.) AGA 
stated that the D.C. Circuit adopted a similar rationale in Hearth, 
Patio, & Barbecue Association v. DOE, which vacated and remanded DOE's 
standards for direct heating equipment when the court rejected

[[Page 11461]]

DOE's pretextual argument that it had not imposed a design requirement 
for a class of products that were ineligible for design requirements. 
(Id.) AGA noted that the rule gave manufacturers the option of meeting 
either DOE's efficiency standard or a third-party standard that would 
have required elimination of constant burning pilot lights. (Id.)
    DOE reiterates that the standard level recommended for gas cooking 
tops in the Joint Agreement and established in this direct final rule 
is a performance requirement and not a design standard. As stated, this 
IAEC level can be met by a variety of cooking tops with a variety of 
burner input rate configurations. Chapter 5 of the TSD for this direct 
final rule includes examples of cooking tops in the expanded test 
sample that meet the established performance standard.
    AHAM commented that it noticed an error in DOE's standby power 
analysis for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 30) AHAM commented 
that to calculate highest measured efficiency, DOE added the lowest 
measured active energy consumption to the highest standby energy 
consumption of all units, but that DOE seemed to be adding values with 
different units of measure (kBtu + kWh) and that a correct calculation 
would result in an EL 2 of 1,277 kBtu/year. (Id.)
    DOE appreciates AHAM's comment and notes that this error was 
corrected in its analysis for the August 2023 NODA.
    AHAM noted that it used DOE's definition of HIR burner--input rate 
greater than or equal to 14,000 Btu/h--but questioned this as the 
appropriate threshold for the definition since DOE provided no 
justification for the selection in the form of consumer data or other 
evidence. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 3) AHAM requested that DOE present the 
data supporting this threshold to avoid its analysis being seen as 
arbitrary. (Id.) AHAM commented that it presents data on consumer 
preference that show that higher burner input rates have consumer 
utility--specifically, HIR burners provide quicker times to boil, an 
important consumer performance feature. (Id. at pp. 17-19)
    Whirlpool requested that DOE provide data showing that gas cooking 
tops and ranges with a single HIR burner of 14,000 Btu/h and above are 
sufficient to meet consumers' cooking needs across all types of gas 
cooking products (e.g., entry-level, mass-market, and high-output 
products). (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at pp. 6-7) If this is not possible, 
Whirlpool recommended that DOE reconsider the 14,000 Btu threshold 
proposed, as Whirlpool asserts that DOE's own data reveal that this is 
not representative of HIR burners on the market, noting that most 
models in DOE's data set have at least one burner with an input rate 
between 18,000 Btu/h and 25,000 Btu/h. (Id.) Whirlpool commented that 
DOE's proposed definition of HIR burners would include models that may 
not adequately perform certain types of cooking such as boiling, stir-
frying, and searing, that is more easily done at high temperatures.
    Throughout the history of this rulemaking, starting with the 
February 2014 RFI, DOE has considered HIR burners to be those rated at 
or above 14,000 Btu/h. 79 FR 8337, 8340. DOE based this determination 
on the April 2009 Final Rule and a report published as part of the 
September 1998 Final Rule.\39\ 74 FR 16040; 16054 (Apr. 8, 2009). DOE 
further notes that the cooking product industry has not standardized a 
threshold for HIR burners within publicly available marketing material. 
For example, Consumer Reports considers high-power burners to be those 
rated above 11,000 Btu/h.\40\ According to Whirlpool's website, it 
considers HIR burners to be rated above 12,000 Btu/h.\41\ DOE 
additionally notes that in a comment submitted in response to the 
February 2023 SNOPR, Whirlpool referred to large burners as those rated 
above 15,000 Btu/h. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at p. 7) Considering the 
apparent lack of consensus regarding a threshold that constitutes an 
HIR burner, and the range of possible thresholds apparent through 
publicly available sources, DOE has determined the use of 14,000 Btu/h 
to be a reasonable threshold for distinguishing HIR burners for the 
purposes of its analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking 
Products, Volume 2: Potential Impact of Alternative Efficiency 
Levels for Residential Cooking Products. Available at 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-STD-0070-0004.
    \40\ See www.consumerreports.org.
    \41\ ``How Many BTUs Are Needed for a Gas Range [verbar] 
Whirlpool''. Available at www.whirlpool.com/blog/kitchen/how-many-btus-for-gas-range.html (last accessed August 11, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM recommended that DOE evaluate additional gap-fill levels for 
gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 44) AHAM commented that for 
these gap-fill levels, DOE should also add 5 percent to the level to 
account for test variation and conservative rating. (Id.)
    Sub-Zero asserted that equity between electric and gas cooking top 
standards cannot be attained without a gap fill between EL 1 and 
baseline for gas cooking tops. (Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at p. 11)
    As discussed, in response to the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE received 
additional gas cooking top test data from AHAM and PG&E that prompted 
DOE to review the engineering analysis--including the defined 
efficiency levels--for gas cooking tops as presented in the February 
2023 SNOPR. In the August 2023 NODA, DOE presented updated efficiency 
levels for gas cooking tops based on its new expanded data set. 88 FR 
50810, 50812. The following paragraphs summarize the key updates to the 
analysis for gas cooking tops that DOE presented in the August 2023 
NODA.
    In the August 2023 NODA, the updates to the efficiency levels for 
gas cooking tops included (1) an updated ETLP estimate at 
each efficiency level for gas cooking tops, equal to the average of the 
non-zero ETLP values measured in the expanded test sample; 
(2) an updated definition of the baseline efficiency level, based on 
the least efficient AEC value in the expanded test sample, which is 
less efficient than the least efficient AEC in the February 2023 SNOPR 
test sample; (3) an updated definition of EL 1, representing the most 
energy efficient AEC among units with multiple HIR burners and 
continuous cast-iron grates that would not preclude any combination of 
other features mentioned by manufacturers (e.g., different nominal unit 
widths, sealed burners, at least one low input rate burner (``LIR 
burner''),\42\ 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; and (4) an 
updated definition of the max-tech efficiency level based on the most 
efficient AEC value in the expanded test sample, achievable with 
multiple HIR burners (rather than a single HIR burner, used as the 
basis for the February 2023 SNOPR) and continuous cast-iron grates. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ In this direct final rule, DOE defines an LIR burner as a 
burner with an input rate below 6,500 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section IV.B of this document, to develop 
incremental efficiency levels for gas cooking tops, DOE analyzed the 
distribution of AEC values among only the cooking tops in the expanded 
test sample that have multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron 
grates. DOE did not consider any efficiency levels that would result in 
the lack of multiple HIR burners or continuous cast-iron grates. In the 
direct final rule TSD, DOE presents the results for all tested gas 
cooking tops, because these results are also used to develop

[[Page 11462]]

the market share distributions (see section IV.F.8 of this document).
    Table IV.11 shows the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops that 
DOE evaluated for the August 2023 NODA. Id.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.018

    DOE sought comment on the methodology and results for the 
efficiency levels for gas cooking tops presented in the August 2023 
NODA. Id. at 88 FR 50813.
    ASAP et al.\43\ commented in support of DOE's updated analysis in 
the August 2023 NODA. (ASAP et al., No. 10113 at p. 1) ASAP et al. 
commented in support of the updated efficiency levels for gas cooking 
tops to reflect the expanded test sample and to ensure the availability 
of models with multiple HIR burners. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ In this context ``ASAP et al.'' refers to a joint comment 
from Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an 
Energy Efficient Economy, National Consumer Law Center, and Natural 
Resources Defense Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WE ACT for Environmental Justice (``WE ACT'') commented that it 
opposes removing the prescriptive standard that gas cooking products 
not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. (WE ACT, No. 10114 
at p. 6) WE ACT commented that whether a gas cooking product has a 
pilot light influences its fuel efficiency. (Id.) WE ACT commented that 
because pilot lights burn constantly without producing usable heat, 
half of the energy is lost. (Id.)
    EPCA defines an energy conservation standard as either a 
performance standard which prescribes a minimum energy efficiency 
determined in accordance with a test procedure or a design requirement. 
(42 U.S.C. 6291(6)) Furthermore, EPCA also contains 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)) As discussed, DOE notes that constant 
burning pilot lights consume approximately 2,000 kBtu/year. 88 FR 6818, 
6844. Therefore, a gas cooking top with a constant burning pilot light 
cannot meet the maximum IAEC established as the baseline efficiency 
level in this direct final rule of 1,900 kBtu/year, or the adopted 
standard level of 1,770 kBtu/year. The Joint Agreement specifies a 
performance standard for gas cooking tops, which replaces the existing 
design requirement prohibiting the use of constant burning pilot lights 
on gas cooking tops with or without an electrical supply cord.
    AHAM requested that DOE clarify how it determined the 101 kBtu/year 
ETLP value stated to be an outlier, and why it ignored the 
ETLP value of 118 kBtu/year from PG&E Test Unit #5. (AHAM, 
No. 10116 at p. 9)
    DOE understands AHAM's comment to be referencing a statement in the 
August 2023 NODA indicating that 101 kBtu/year was the largest 
ETLP value in DOE's test sample. DOE notes that while PG&E 
Test Unit #5 has a larger ETLP value, the statement in 
question was referencing the DOE test sample analyzed in support of the 
February 2023 SNOPR, which did not include PG&E Unit #5. DOE received 
data from PG&E after publication of the February 2023 SNOPR. 
Nonetheless, DOE's assessment that values of ETLP over 100 
kBtu/year represent outliers remains valid when the analysis considers 
the expanded dataset. In response to AHAM's request, DOE is clarifying 
that in this case, DOE considers the ETLP values of 101 
kBtu/year and 118 kBtu/year both to be outliers, as confirmed by the 
interquartile method of identifying outliers in which any non-zero 
value in the expanded dataset greater than 68 kBtu/year would be 
considered an outlier. Furthermore, fewer than 5 percent of the 
ETLP values in the expanded dataset are greater than 100 
kBtu/year.
    PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, jointly the California Investor-Owned 
Utilities (``CA IOUs''), commented that DOE should revise the 
ETLP allocated to each efficiency level for gas cooking tops 
to more closely align with the methodology for electric smooth element 
cooking tops, stating that this revision allows for the development of 
more representative efficiency levels where the baseline efficiency 
levels represent the maximum observed energy consumption while the 
incremental efficiency levels represent annual standby energy use 
improvements. (CA IOUs, No. 10106 at pp. 1-3)
    As discussed, in response to the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE received 
additional gas cooking top test data that prompted DOE to review the 
engineering analysis for gas cooking tops. The updates to the 
efficiency levels for gas cooking tops presented in the August 2023 
NODA reflect this additional stakeholder data. DOE has determined that 
the updated ETLP estimate at each efficiency level for gas 
cooking tops, equal to the average of the non-zero ETLP 
values measured in the expanded test sample, is a representative 
allocation of the standby mode energy consumption at each efficiency 
level for gas cooking tops. DOE notes that it analyzed efficiency 
levels for gas cooking tops and electric cooking tops separately, in 
accordance with the EPCA requirement that any new or amended energy 
conservation standards be prescribed for each individual product class 
in order to achieve the maximum energy efficiency for that product 
class. (U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
    AHAM commented that it opposes the methodology of combining burners 
of different types from more than one unit in the test sample to 
represent a theoretical unit that can meet the updated EL 1 for gas 
cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 10116 at p. 6) AHAM commented that this 
methodology is not representative of the units in the test sample. 
(Id.) AHAM further commented that it opposes combining the active mode 
and standby mode energy consumption of different units to define 
efficiency levels. (Id. at p. 9)
    In this direct final rule, DOE determines that the methodology of 
combining burners of different types from the units in its test sample 
is an appropriate estimation of the potential breadth of gas cooking 
top efficiencies available on the market. Although DOE acknowledges 
that a cooking top redesign is performed at the product

[[Page 11463]]

level and not at the burner level, by combining burners of various 
input rates and efficiencies in its analysis, DOE can simulate the 
decisions manufacturers will need to make as they redesign their 
cooking tops to meet new and amended standards.
    The National Association of Home Builders (``NAHB'') commented that 
DOE should further revise the updated efficiency levels to reflect 
additional stakeholder feedback and data. (NAHB, No. 10115 at p. 2) 
NAHB commented that the updated efficiency levels would still increase 
costs for manufacturers, decrease product performance, and impact the 
availability of product features that consumers want. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that it is unclear how DOE defined efficiency levels 
and how technology options could be employed to reach each efficiency 
level presented in the August 2023 NODA. (AHAM, No. 10116 at p. 4) AHAM 
commented that DOE has not provided descriptions of the combination of 
features present in each unit in its test sample. (Id.) AHAM commented 
that the updated efficiency level for gas cooking tops is sensitive to 
variation in a limited number of test models. (Id. at pp. 6-7) AHAM 
commented that only one gas cooking top in the test sample, DOE Test 
Unit #18, meets the updated EL 1 and has multiple HIR burners, 
continuous cast-iron grates, at least one LIR burner, multiple dual-
stacked and/or multi-ring HIR burners, and at least one extra-high 
input rate burner. (Id.) AHAM requested that DOE explain how the 
updated EL 1 for gas cooking tops does not preclude any combination of 
certain features and allow opportunity to comment after such 
explanation. (Id.)
    The Joint Agreement recommended that DOE establish standards at an 
efficiency level, corresponding to 1,770 kBtu/year, that was not 
analyzed in either the February 2023 SNOPR or the August 2023 NODA. In 
this direct final rule, DOE analyzed this recommended efficiency level 
in place of the EL 1 defined in the August 2023 NODA and determined 
that an IAEC of 1,770 Btu/year can be achieved by a gas cooking top 
with multiple HIR burners, continuous cast-iron grates, at least one 
LIR burner, and does not preclude any other combination of consumer-
desired features.
    In this direct final rule, DOE analyzed the gas cooking top 
efficiency levels for both gas cooking top product classes shown in 
Table IV.12.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.019

    Although these efficiency levels and the standards adopted in this 
direct final rule are expressed in terms of IAEC, it is useful to 
examine how these identified levels relate to performance at a per-
burner level to help illustrate the wide range of burner styles that 
can be implemented in cooking tops that achieve the standards adopted 
by this direct final rule. By ``backing out'' from each IAEC value the 
number of annual cooking cycles and representative water load mass as 
defined by the DOE test procedure, each IAEC value can be associated 
with a corresponding average normalized gas energy consumption 
representative of the Energy Test Cycle across all of the burners 
(i.e., a corresponding ``average per-burner efficiency'' that 
represents the average of the energy used per gram (g) of water tested, 
expressed in Btu/g, among all of the burners on the cooking top).\44\ 
Table IV.13 shows the corresponding average per-burner efficiency 
associated with each defined IAEC level. For both IEAC and the 
corresponding average per-burner efficiency, lower values are 
indicative of higher-efficiency performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides further 
details on the methodology for determining the corresponding average 
per-burner efficiency associated with each defined IAEC level.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.020

    A wide range of burner styles can achieve these efficiency 
performance thresholds at each of the defined efficiency levels. 
Section 5.5.3.1 of chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD includes a 
graph in which DOE presents the normalized gas energy consumption of 
each gas burner in the expanded test sample. This graph demonstrates 
that a

[[Page 11464]]

wide diversity of gas burner styles currently on the market meet the EL 
1 and EL 2 efficiency thresholds shown in Table IV.13. Specifically, 
burners meeting the EL 1 efficiency threshold (corresponding to the 
finalized standard) span the whole range of tested burner input rates 
(3,900-25,000 Btu/h). In other words, on a per-burner basis, EL 1 
performance can be achieved using any combination of low input, medium 
input, or high input rate burners.
    DOE further emphasizes that gas cooking top efficiency is 
calculated based on the average normalized gas energy consumption among 
each of the burners required to be tested. As such, a gas cooking top 
that achieves EL 1 performance (corresponding to the finalized 
standard) may include individual burners whose normalized gas energy 
consumption is greater than 1.46 Btu/g, provided that the overall 
average performance across all tested burners is no greater than 1.46 
Btu/g.
b. Conventional Ovens
Analyzed Product Types
    As discussed, the Joint Agreement defines two product classes for 
conventional ovens: electric ovens and gas ovens. For this direct final 
rule, DOE analyzed four product types per conventional oven product 
class, representing different energy use profiles and baseline cost, as 
follows.
    In the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE found that standard ovens and 
ovens using a catalytic continuous-cleaning process use roughly the 
same amount of energy. However, self-clean ovens use a pyrolytic 
process that provides enhanced consumer utility with lower overall 
energy consumption as compared to either standard or catalytically 
lined ovens. Based on DOE's review of gas ovens available on the U.S. 
market, and on manufacturer interviews and testing conducted as part of 
the engineering analysis, DOE noted in the June 2015 NOPR that the 
self-cleaning function of a self-clean oven may employ methods other 
than a high-temperature pyrolytic cycle to perform the cleaning 
action.\45\ 80 FR 33030, 33043. DOE clarified that a conventional self-
clean electric or gas oven is an oven that has a user-selectable mode 
separate from the normal baking mode, not intended to heat or cook 
food, which is dedicated to cleaning and removing cooking deposits from 
the oven cavity walls. Id. As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE 
stated that it is not aware of any differences in consumer behavior in 
terms of the frequency of use of the self-clean function that would be 
predicated on the type of self-cleaning technology rather than on 
cleaning habits or cooking usage patterns that are not dependent on the 
type of technology. 81 FR 60784, 60804.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ DOE noted that it is aware of a type of self-cleaning oven 
that uses a proprietary oven coating and water to perform a self-
clean cycle with a shorter duration and at a significantly lower 
temperature setting. The self-cleaning cycle for these ovens, unlike 
catalytically lined standard ovens that provide continuous cleaning 
during normal baking, still have a separate self-cleaning mode that 
is user-selectable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recent conventional oven test procedures, DOE has included 
methods for measuring fan-only mode energy use.\46\ Based on DOE's 
testing of freestanding, built-in, and slide-in gas and electric ovens, 
DOE observed that all of the built-in and slide-in ovens tested 
consumed energy in fan-only mode, whereas freestanding ovens did not. 
The energy consumption in fan-only mode for built-in and slide-in ovens 
ranged from approximately 1.3 to 37.6 watt-hours (``Wh'') per cycle, 
which corresponds to 0.25 to 7.6 kWh/year. Based on DOE's reverse 
engineering analyses, DOE noted that built-in and slide-in products 
incorporate an additional exhaust fan and vent assembly that is not 
present in freestanding products. The additional energy required to 
exhaust air from the oven cavity is necessary for slide-in and built-in 
installation configurations to meet safety-related temperature 
requirements because the oven is enclosed in cabinetry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Fan-only mode is an active mode that is not user-selectable 
in which a fan circulates air internally or externally to the 
cooking product for a finite period of time after the end of the 
heating function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, in this direct final rule, DOE analyzed four 
product types for each conventional oven product class: standard 
freestanding oven, standard built-in/slide-in oven, self-clean 
freestanding oven, and self-clean built-in/slide-in oven.\47\ However, 
efficiency levels and incremental costs were analyzed at the product 
class level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE described standard ovens as 
including ovens with and without a catalytic line. For simplicity, 
DOE is using the term ``standard oven'' in this direct final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Potential Prescriptive Standards
    There are no current test procedures for conventional ovens. 
Therefore, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE considered only efficiency 
levels corresponding to prescriptive design requirements as defined by 
the design options developed as part of the screening analysis (see 
section IV.B of this document): convection mode capability,\48\ the use 
of an SMPS, and an oven separator (for electric ovens only). 88 FR 
6818, 6846. DOE ordered the design options by ease of implementation. 
Table IV.14 and Table IV.15 define the efficiency levels analyzed in 
the February 2023 SNOPR for both electric and gas oven product classes, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ As discussed in section IV.B.1.c of this document, DOE 
renamed the design option from ``forced convection'' to ``convection 
mode capability,'' for clarity.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.021


[[Page 11465]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.022

    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE assumed that a baseline 
conventional oven uses a linear power supply, based on DOE's analysis 
of these products. Id. A linear power supply typically produces 
unregulated as well as regulated power. The main characteristic of an 
unregulated power supply is that its output may contain significant 
voltage ripple and that the output voltage will usually vary with the 
current drawn. The voltages produced by regulated power supplies are 
typically more stable, exhibiting less ripple than the output from an 
unregulated power supply and maintaining a relatively constant voltage 
within the specified current limits of the device(s) regulating the 
power. The unregulated portion of a linear power supply typically 
consists of a transformer that steps AC line voltage down, a voltage 
rectifier circuit for AC to DC conversion, and a capacitor to produce 
unregulated, DC output. However, there are other means of producing and 
implementing an unregulated power supply such as transformer-less 
capacitive and/or resistive rectification circuits. Within a linear 
power supply, the unregulated output serves as an input into a single 
or multiple voltage-regulating device. Such regulating devices include 
Zener diodes, linear voltage regulators, or similar components which 
produce a lower-potential, regulated power output from a higher-
potential DC input. This approach results in a rugged power supply 
which is reliable but typically has an efficiency of about 40 percent.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE analyzed the use of an SMPS rather 
than a linear power supply for EL 1. Id. at 88 FR 6847. An SMPS can 
reduce the standby mode energy consumption for conventional ovens due 
to their higher conversion efficiencies of up to 75 percent in 
appliance applications for power supply sizes similar to those of 
conventional ovens. An SMPS also reduces the no-load standby losses. In 
the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE stated that it is considering EL 1 to 
correspond to the prescriptive requirement that the conventional oven 
not be equipped with a linear power supply. Id.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE analyzed the implementation of 
convection mode capability for EL 2. Id. An oven in convection mode 
uses a fan to distribute warm air evenly throughout the oven cavity. 
The use of forced circulation can reduce fuel consumption by cooking 
food more quickly, at lower temperatures, and in larger quantities than 
a natural convection oven of the same size and rating. Ovens can use 
convection heating elements in addition to resistance and other types 
of elements to speed up the cooking process. By using different cooking 
elements where they are most effective, such combination ovens can 
reduce the time and energy consumption required to cook food. As 
described further in chapter 5 of the TSD for this direct final rule, 
DOE performed testing on consumer conventional ovens in support of this 
rulemaking to determine the improvement in cooking efficiency 
associated with convection mode. Included in the DOE test sample were 
four gas ovens and two electric ovens equipped with a convection mode. 
DOE compared the measured energy consumption of each oven in bake mode 
to the average energy consumption of bake mode and convection mode 
(including energy consumption due to the fan motor) as specified in the 
test procedure. The relative decrease in active mode energy consumption 
resulting from the implementation of a convection mode in consumer 
conventional ovens ranged from 3.5 to 7.5 percent depending on the 
product class. In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE stated that it is 
considering EL 2 to correspond to the prescriptive requirement that the 
conventional oven be equipped with a convection fan. Id. This 
prescriptive requirement would not preclude a non-convection mode being 
offered selectable by the consumer. Id.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, for EL 3, DOE analyzed the use of an 
oven separator, for electric ovens only.\49\ Id. For loads that do not 
require the entire oven volume, an oven separator can be used to reduce 
the cavity volume that is used for cooking. With less oven volume to 
heat, the energy used to cook an item would be reduced. The oven 
separator considered here is the type that can be easily and quickly 
installed by the user. The side walls of the oven cavity would be 
fitted with ``slots'' that guide and hold the separator into position, 
and a switch to indicate when the separator has been installed. The 
oven would also require at least two separate heating elements to heat 
the two cavities. Different pairs of ``slots'' would be spaced 
throughout the oven cavity so that the user could select different 
positions to place the separator. In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 
stated that it is considering EL 3 to correspond to the prescriptive 
requirement that the electric oven be equipped with an oven separator. 
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Oven separators are not used in gas ovens because they 
would interfere with the combustion air flow and venting 
requirements for the separate gas burners on the top and bottom of 
the oven cavity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the February 2023 SNOPR and the August 2023 NODA, DOE sought 
comment on the definitions of the proposed efficiency level for 
conventional ovens. Id. at 88 FR 50810, 50813.
    The CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider a prescriptive 
requirement for built-in and slide-in oven fan runtimes. (CA IOUs, No. 
2278 at pp. 4-6) The CA IOUs commented that a strong correlation exists 
between fan-only mode duration and energy use, and noted that DOE found 
a considerable variation in fan run times and energy use, ranging from 
4.5 to 69 minutes and 1 Wh to 32 Wh, respectively. (Id.) The CA IOUs 
recommended that DOE set a prescriptive limit of fan-only mode run time 
that could potentially save approximately 7 kWh/year per built-in/
slide-in oven, comparable to the 12 kWh/year that DOE's proposed 
prescriptive standard would attain. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that 
many commercially available ovens have fans that operate for a shorter 
time while providing the same function as fans with a longer runtime. 
(Id.) The CA IOUs asserted that a prescriptive standard limiting fan 
runtime is technologically feasible and cost-effective for consumers, 
because it requires only the implementation of a timer, and could yield 
savings of up to $13 in lifetime operating costs. (Id.) The CA IOUs 
also asserted that a

[[Page 11466]]

prescriptive runtime requirement is unlikely to increase manufacturer 
impacts significantly because manufacturers can readily incorporate the 
timer into any product redesign to comply with the proposed standards. 
(Id.) The CA IOUs additionally recommended DOE consider relevant safety 
standards and requirements when setting a fan runtime limit. (Id.)
    DOE notes that limiting fan runtime in conventional ovens could 
introduce a potential safety hazard for certain designs by limiting the 
amount of cooling after a cooking cycle. DOE lacks sufficient data at 
this time to characterize the design tradeoffs and energy consumption 
impacts of specific fan runtimes to allow it to establish a 
prescriptive requirement for fan runtimes.
    In this direct final rule, DOE is analyzing, consistent with the 
recommendations in the Joint Agreement, the efficiency levels for 
conventional ovens that were proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. Table 
IV.16 and Table IV.17 define the efficiency levels for the electric and 
gas oven product classes, respectively.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.024

Energy Consumption of Each Efficiency Level
    DOE's test sample for conventional ovens included one gas wall 
oven, seven gas ranges, five electric wall ovens, and two electric 
ranges for a total of 15 conventional ovens covering all of the 
considered product types. DOE conducted testing according to the test 
procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 6818, 6847. 
However, as discussed previously, DOE is considering only efficiency 
levels corresponding to prescriptive design requirements, consistent 
with the Joint Agreement. In order to develop estimated energy 
consumption rates for each efficiency level, in support of the Energy 
Use analysis (see section IV.E of this document), DOE based its 
analyses on the data measured using the now-repealed test procedure.
    The integrated annual oven energy consumption (``IEAO'' 
\50\) for each consumer conventional oven in DOE's test sample was 
broken down into its component parts: the energy of active cooking 
mode, EAO (including any self-cleaning operation); fan-only 
mode, for built-in/slide-in ovens as applicable; and combined low-power 
mode, ETLP (including standby mode and off mode).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ In this direct final rule, DOE refers to the integrated 
annual oven energy consumption using the abbreviation 
IEAO, rather than IAEC, to emphasize the difference 
between the IAEC values used for conventional cooking tops which 
were measured according to appendix I1 and the energy use values 
used for conventional ovens which were measured according to the 
test procedure as finalized in the July 2015 TP Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because oven cooking efficiency and energy consumption depend on 
cavity volume, DOE normalized IEAO to a representative 
cavity volume of 4.3 cubic feet (``ft\3\'') using the relationship 
between energy consumption and cavity volume discussed in chapter 5 of 
the TSD for this direct final rule to allow for more direct comparison 
between units in the test sample.
    As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE developed energy 
consumption values for the baseline efficiency levels for conventional 
ovens considering both data from the previous standards rulemaking and 
the measured energy use for the test units. DOE conducted testing for 
all units in its test sample to measure integrated annual energy 
consumption, which included energy use in active mode (including fan-
only mode) and standby mode. 81 FR 60784, 60814. As discussed in the 
September 2016 SNOPR, DOE augmented its analysis of electric standard 
ovens by considering the energy use of the electric self-clean units in 
its test sample, adjusted to account for the differences between 
standard-clean and self-clean ovens. Augmenting the electric standard 
oven dataset with self-clean models from the DOE test sample allowed 
DOE to consider a wider range of cavity volumes in its analysis. 81 FR 
60784, 60815. To establish the estimated energy consumption values for 
the baseline efficiency levels for conventional ovens, DOE first 
derived a relationship between energy consumption and cavity volume. 
Using the slope from the previous rulemaking, DOE selected new 
intercepts corresponding to the ovens in its test sample with the 
lowest efficiency, so that no ovens in the test sample were cut off by 
the baseline curve. DOE then set baseline standby energy consumption 
for conventional ovens equal to that of the oven (including the oven 
component of a combined cooking product) with the highest standby 
energy consumption in DOE's test sample to maintain the full 
functionality of controls for consumer utility. In response to the 
September 2016 SNOPR, DOE did not receive comment on the baseline 
efficiency

[[Page 11467]]

levels considered for conventional ovens. 85 FR 80982, 81011.
    For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE expanded its sample size of 
conventional ovens and ranges used to determine the baseline 
ETLP value and calculated the baseline ETLP using 
the highest combined low-power mode measured power on a conventional 
range with a linear power supply. 88 FR 6818, 6848.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE developed the incremental 
efficiency levels for each design option identified as a result of the 
screening analysis. Id. at 88 FR 6849. DOE then developed estimated 
energy consumption values for each efficiency level based on test data 
collected according to the earlier version of the oven test procedure 
established in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. Id.
    DOE's testing of freestanding, built-in, and slide-in installation 
configurations for gas and electric ovens revealed that built-in and 
slide-in ovens have a fan that consumes energy in fan-only mode, 
whereas freestanding ovens do not have such a fan. For the February 
2023 SNOPR, DOE developed separate energy consumption values for each 
installation configuration. Id.
    DOE sought comment on the methodology and results for the estimated 
energy use of each proposed efficiency level for conventional ovens. 
Id. at 88 FR 6850.
    AHAM commented that DOE is inappropriately relying on the withdrawn 
test procedure for conventional ovens to calculate savings attributable 
to design standards for ovens. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 16) AHAM commented 
that DOE determined that the withdrawn rule may not accurately 
represent consumer use because it favors conventional ovens with low 
thermal mass and does not capture cooking performance-related benefits 
due to increased thermal mass of the oven cavity. (Id.) AHAM commented 
that DOE should not calculate savings based on a test it has determined 
does not produce representative results and that any analysis produced 
using an unrepresentative test procedure is likely to be inaccurate. 
(Id.)
    DOE notes that because there is currently no established test 
procedure for conventional ovens, DOE is using the best data it has 
available at this time, which is based on its previous test procedure, 
to estimate savings associated with the prescriptive standards. DOE 
further notes that the prescriptive standards for conventional ovens 
recommended in the Joint Agreement and adopted in this direct final 
rule are based on an SMPS design option, and that energy use of this 
design option does not depend upon the thermal mass of the oven.
    For the reasons presented in the February 2023 SNOPR, in this 
direct final rule, DOE is estimating the energy consumption values for 
each efficiency level for conventional ovens using the methodology 
described in the February 2023 SNOPR.
Energy Use Versus Cavity Volume
    The energy consumption of the conventional oven efficiency levels 
detailed above are predicated upon ovens with a cavity volume of 4.3 
ft\3\. Based on DOE's testing of gas and electric ovens and discussions 
with manufacturers, energy use scales with oven cavity volume due to 
larger ovens having higher thermal masses and larger volumes of air 
(including larger vent rates) than smaller ovens. Because the DOE test 
procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule for measuring 
IEAO uses a fixed test load size, larger ovens with higher 
thermal mass will have a higher measured IEAO. As a result, 
DOE considered available data to characterize the relationship between 
energy use and oven cavity volume. Additional discussion of DOE's 
derivation of the oven IEAO versus cavity volume 
relationship is presented in chapter 5 of the TSD for this direct final 
rule.
2. Cost Analysis
    The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted 
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost 
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and 
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated 
product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the product on 
the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
     Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically 
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to 
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
     Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a 
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available 
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) 
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
     Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown 
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as 
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which 
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise 
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price 
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online 
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and 
other commercial channels.
    In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using physical and 
catalog teardowns. The resulting bill of materials provides the basis 
for the manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') estimates.
    To account for manufacturers' profit margin, DOE applies a 
multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting 
manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') is the price at which the 
manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed an average 
manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``SEC'') 10-K reports filed by publicly-traded 
manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose 
combined product range includes consumer conventional cooking products. 
See chapter 12 of the TSD for this direct final rule for additional 
detail on the manufacturer markup.
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
    In defining the baseline and incremental MPCs for each defined 
product class for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it 
had received in response to the cost-efficiency results presented in 
the February 2023 SNOPR.
a. Electric Cooking Tops
    For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE developed the cost-efficiency 
results for electric smooth element cooking tops shown in Table IV.18. 
88 FR 6818, 6850. DOE developed incremental MPCs based on manufacturing 
cost modeling of units in its sample featuring the design options.

[[Page 11468]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.025

    In the August 2023 NODA, DOE maintained the incremental MPCs for 
electric smooth element cooking tops that were proposed in the February 
2023 SNOPR. 88 FR 50810, 50813.
    DOE requested comment, data, and information on the incremental 
manufacturer production costs for electric smooth element cooking tops 
in the February 2023 SNOPR and the August 2023 NODA. 88 FR 6818, 6852, 
88 FR 50810, 50813.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding electric smooth element 
cooking top MPCs in response to the February 2023 SNOPR or the August 
2023 NODA.
    For this direct final rule, DOE updated the underlying raw material 
prices used in its cost model to reflect current raw material prices, 
which resulted in slight changes to the MPC values in comparison to the 
values used in the February 2023 SNOPR. Table IV.19 presents the 
incremental MPCs for each efficiency level analyzed in this direct 
final rule for both electric smooth element cooking top product 
classes. DOE notes that the estimated incremental MPCs are equivalent 
for standalone cooking tops and the cooking top component of combined 
cooking products because none of the considered design options would be 
implemented differently as a function of installation configuration.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.026

b. Gas Cooking Tops
    For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE developed the cost-efficiency 
results for gas cooking tops shown in Table IV.20. 88 FR 6818, 6850. 
DOE developed incremental MPCs based on manufacturing cost modeling of 
units in its sample featuring the design options.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.027

    DOE sought comment on the manufacturer production costs for gas 
cooking tops used in the analysis for the February 2023 SNOPR. 88 FR 
6818, 6852.
    AGA commented that DOE has considered the design costs of 
redesigning cooking tops to meet the TSL but does not consider other 
costs to manufacturers and consumers if the design of the product must 
completely change to allow for features that keep a product 
competitive. (AGA, No. 2279 at p. 43)
    As discussed, DOE determines the incremental MPCs based on 
manufacturing cost modeling of the units in its test sample featuring 
the designated design options. DOE notes that it considers the overall 
cost to manufacturers and consumers as part of its LCC and PBP analysis 
and the MIA analysis, as discussed in the following sections of this 
document.
    AHAM commented that DOE should revisit the February 2023 SNOPR MPC 
for EL 2 gas cooking tops, stating that the incremental cost from EL 1 
is not zero. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 22) AHAM commented that a cooking 
top with a full range of burner capacities, including an LIR burner, 
will cost more than one with a homogenized set of mid-input range 
burners. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE determined that 
there is not likely to be a cost difference between EL 1 and EL 2, but 
in order to retain product performance (e.g., the ability to cook at 
lower temperatures), AHAM commented that a stacked burner would be an 
option. (Id. at p. 37) AHAM noted that DOE has not considered the cost 
associated with the stacked burner design configuration, but if DOE 
continues to consider EL 2, it must take into account the cost 
associated with stacked burners at EL 2. (Id.)
    DOE defined EL 2 for gas cooking tops based on the AEC of the least 
energy-consumptive cooking top in its expanded test sample that 
contained multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates, 
regardless of specific burner configuration other than input rate. This 
efficiency level does not

[[Page 11469]]

presume the use of dual-stacked burners, and for that reason DOE did 
not include the cost of improving the efficiency of dual-stacked 
burners in an optimized burner and grate design in the incremental MPC 
for gas cooking tops at EL 2. However, as discussed in section IV.C.1.a 
of this document, DOE recognizes the value in maintaining the product 
performance attributes of all the features that manufacturers stated 
that consumers value, including dual-stacked HIR burners, and notes 
that the standards adopted in this direct final rule, which represent 
EL 1 for gas cooking tops, would allow manufacturers to continue to 
offer this burner design.
    In the August 2023 NODA, DOE updated the MPCs for gas cooking tops 
based on its understanding of the different types of burner and grate 
redesigns likely to be needed to achieve each of the revised efficiency 
levels, using the same underlying data as was used in the February 2023 
SNOPR. Id.
    DOE stated that its analysis shows that the incremental MPC 
developed in the February 2023 SNOPR, $12.41, representing the 
optimized burner and grate design option (e.g., grate weight, flame 
angle, distance from burner ports to the cooking surface), accurately 
represents the cost to redesign a unit at EL 1 to meet EL 2. Id.
    To develop the incremental MPC between the updated baseline and EL 
1 for the August 2023 NODA, DOE analyzed the test data in its expanded 
test sample which shows that cooking tops at the baseline efficiency 
level typically include one or two burners with ``non-optimized'' 
turndown capability (i.e., the lowest available simmer setting is more 
energy consumptive than necessary to hold the test load in a constant 
simmer close to 90 [deg]C, resulting in significantly higher energy 
consumption than for a burner with a simmer setting that holds the test 
load close to that temperature). Id. In the August 2023 NODA, DOE 
estimated that the cost of implementing a burner with optimized 
turndown capability in place of a burner with non-optimized turndown 
capability to meet typical efficiencies available in the market is 
smaller than the cost of an entirely redesigned burner and grate system 
(associated with the incremental MPC between EL 1 and EL 2). Id. DOE 
estimated that the percentage of burners with non-optimized turndown 
capability (defined empirically from the expanded test sample as 
burners with a specific energy use of more than 1.45 Btu per gram of 
water in the test load, as measured by appendix I1) in the baseline 
units in its expanded test sample ranged from 16 percent (one out of 
six burners) to 40 percent (two out of five burners). Id. In order to 
conservatively assess the incremental MPC between baseline and EL 1, 
DOE defined it as 40 percent of the $12.41 incremental MPC between EL 1 
and EL 2, or $4.96. Id.
    In the August 2023 NODA, DOE developed the incremental MPCs 
relative to the baseline associated with the updated efficiency levels 
shown in Table IV.21. Id.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.028

    DOE requested comment, data, and information on the incremental 
manufacturer production costs for gas cooking tops in the August 2023 
NODA. Id. at 88 FR 50813-50814.
    The CA IOUs commented that while simmer setting optimization would 
improve IAEC, it is unclear why any design changes would result in the 
$4.96 increase to the MPC modeled in the August 2023 NODA. (CA IOUs, 
No. 10106 at pp. 3-5) The CA IOUs asserted that four of the nine gas 
cooking tops tested by PG&E had at least one burner with a non-
optimized simmer setting for at least one test run, and that two of 
these gas cooking tops also had another burner with the same power 
ratings, where one burner could simmer water at temperatures less than 
91 [deg]C and the other burner could not. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented 
that, based on this data, manufacturers could implement an optimized 
simmer setting for all burners using the hardware already installed on 
the optimized burner of the same power rating and that new hardware or 
software that would increase the MPC should not be necessary. (Id.) The 
CA IOUs commented that DOE should consider the incremental MPC at EL 1 
to be negligible or substantially lower than $4.96 to reflect the lack 
of costs associated with optimizing the simmer setting, or clarify its 
determination of the cost of an optimized simmer setting. (Id.)
    In the August 2023 NODA, DOE defined the incremental MPC between 
baseline and EL 1 based on the cost of implementing a burner with 
optimized turndown capability in place of a burner with non-optimized 
turndown capability to meet typical efficiencies available in the 
market. 88 FR 50810, 50813. As discussed in the August 2023 NODA, DOE 
clarifies that it considers burners with ``non-optimized'' turndown 
capability to be burners for which the lowest available simmer setting 
is more energy consumptive than necessary to hold the test load in a 
constant simmer close to 90 [deg]C, resulting in significantly higher 
energy consumption than for a burner with a simmer setting that holds 
the test load close to that temperature. Id. DOE empirically defines a 
non-optimized burner as having a specific energy use of more than 1.45 
Btu per gram of water in the test load, as measured by appendix I1. Id. 
In its analysis for the August 2023 NODA, DOE estimated that the 
percentage of burners with non-optimized turndown capability in the 
baseline units in its expanded test sample ranged up to 40 percent (two 
out of five burners). Id. DOE therefore estimated the incremental MPC 
between baseline and EL 1 to be 40 percent of the incremental MPC 
between EL 1 and EL 2 that corresponds to a whole burner and grate 
system re-design associated with the optimized burner and grate design 
option. Id. In response to the CA IOUs' comment, DOE has reviewed its 
test sample and the additional stakeholder data it has received from 
PG&E, and notes that it has not found information to suggest that 
burners with optimized turndown capability already exist within a 
cooking top alongside burners of the same input rate with non-optimized 
turndown capability for all input rates and unit configurations. 
Therefore, DOE does not have sufficient information to conclude that 
there is

[[Page 11470]]

zero or negligible incremental cost between a non-optimized burner and 
a burner with optimized turndown capability, as suggested by the CA 
IOUs.
    AHAM commented that it opposes the incremental MPCs for gas cooking 
tops between EL 1 and EL 2 presented in the August 2023 NODA. (AHAM, 
No. 10116 at pp. 21-23) AHAM commented that redesign of one burner 
requires consideration of the overall system, grate redesign and 
testing in order to assure performance, safety, and air quality issues. 
(Id.) AHAM commented that DOE should account for total system redesign 
in determining the costs associated with EL 1 and EL 2. (Id.)
    ONE Gas commented that DOE should clarify how it calculated 
increased MPCs for gas cooking tops even though the updated efficiency 
levels in the August 2023 NODA are less stringent. (ONE Gas, No. 10109 
at p. 4)
    DOE notes that the MPCs for gas cooking tops evaluated in the 
February 2023 SNOPR effectively corresponded to a whole burner and 
grate system re-design based on its evaluation of the optimized burner 
and grate design option. 88 FR 6818, 6851. By contrast, in the August 
2023 NODA, DOE updated the MPCs for gas cooking tops based on its 
understanding of the different types of burner and grate redesign 
likely to be needed to achieve each of the revised ELs, using the same 
underlying data as was used in the February 2023 SNOPR. 88 FR 50810, 
50813. Specifically, in the August 2023 NODA, DOE noted that the 
incremental MPC developed for EL 1 in the February 2023 SNOPR 
(corresponding to a reduction of approximately 300 kBtu/year) 
accurately represented the cost to redesign a unit at the August 2023 
NODA EL 1 to meet EL 2 (corresponding to an approximately equivalent 
reduction of around 300 kBtu/year). As discussed, in the August 2023 
NODA, DOE defined the incremental MPC between baseline and EL 1 to be 
40 percent of the incremental MPC between EL 1 and EL 2, based on its 
estimation of the percentage of burners with non-optimized turndown 
capability in the baseline units in its expanded test sample. Id. Also, 
as discussed in the August 2023 NODA, DOE estimated that the cost of 
implementing a burner with optimized turndown capability in place of a 
burner with non-optimized turndown capability to meet typical 
efficiencies available in the market is smaller than the cost of an 
entirely redesigned burner and grate system. Id. As such, DOE 
determined that a total system redesign would not be necessary to 
achieve EL 1 as presented in the August 2023 NODA.
    For this direct final rule, DOE updated the incremental MPCs 
methodology for gas cooking tops based on its understanding of the 
different types of burner and grate redesigns likely to be needed to 
achieve the updated efficiency levels analyzed in this direct final 
rule, using the same underlying data as was used in the February 2023 
SNOPR and August 2023 NODA. DOE revised the incremental MPC between 
baseline and EL 1 to reflect the updated efficiency level recommended 
by the Joint Agreement. In this direct final rule, DOE determines that 
all baseline gas cooking tops in the expanded test sample can achieve 
EL 1 by optimizing a single non-optimized burner, representing 
typically 20 percent of burners (one out of five). Therefore, DOE 
defined the incremental MPC between baseline and EL 1 as 20 percent of 
the previously established incremental MPC between EL 1 and EL 2. For 
this direct final rule, DOE used the analytical approach to determine 
the MPC increase between baseline and EL 2 that was presented in the 
August 2023 NODA.
    Finally, for this direct final rule, DOE updated the underlying raw 
material prices used in its cost model to reflect current raw material 
prices, which resulted in slight changes to the MPC values in 
comparison to the values used in the August 2023 NODA. Table IV.22 
presents the incremental MPCs for each efficiency level analyzed in 
this direct final rule for both gas cooking top product classes. DOE 
notes that the estimated incremental MPCs are equivalent for standalone 
cooking tops and the cooking top component of combined cooking products 
because none of the considered design options would be implemented 
differently as a function of installation configuration.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.029

c. Conventional Ovens
    For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE developed the cost-efficiency 
results for each conventional oven product class based on manufacturing 
cost modeling of units in its sample featuring the design options. DOE 
noted that the estimated incremental MPCs are equivalent for the 
freestanding and built-in/slide-in oven product classes and for the 
standard and self-clean oven product classes because none of the 
considered design options would be implemented differently as a 
function of installation configuration or self-clean functionality. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding conventional oven MPCs 
in response to the February 2023 SNOPR or the August 2023 NODA.
    For this direct final rule, DOE updated the underlying raw material 
prices used in its cost model to reflect current raw material prices, 
which resulted in slight changes to the MPC values in comparison to the 
values used in the February 2023 SNOPR. The incremental MPCs for the 
electric and gas oven product classes are shown in Table IV.23 and 
Table IV.24, respectively.

[[Page 11471]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.031

D. Markups Analysis

    The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., 
manufacturer markups, retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor 
markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP 
estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which 
are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer 
impact analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies 
mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit 
margin.
    As part of the analysis, DOE identifies key market participants and 
distribution channels. For consumer conventional cooking products, the 
main parties in the distribution chain are (1) the manufacturers of the 
products; (2) the retailers purchasing the products from manufacturers 
and selling them to consumers; and (3) the consumers who purchase the 
products.
    For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE developed baseline and incremental 
markups for each actor in the distribution chain. Baseline markups are 
applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while 
incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between 
baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). 
The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and 
is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and 
after new or amended standards.\51\ For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 
relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average 
baseline and incremental markups.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products 
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the 
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is 
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably 
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a 
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
    \52\ U.S. Census, 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey (ARTS), 
Electronics and Appliance Stores sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received 
regarding the markups analysis conducted for the February 2023 SNOPR. 
The approach for used for this direct final rule is the same approach 
DOE had used for the February 2023 SNOPR analysis.
    In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, AHAM commented that DOE 
uses different markups from manufacturers to end customers for the base 
case and for any costs added to meet proposed standards, average, and 
incremental markups respectively. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 50-51) AHAM 
commented that it, AHRI, and others have disputed this distinction over 
many years and rulemakings. (Id.) In particular, AHAM stated that its 
comments on DOE's 2015 NOPR for Energy Conservation Standards for 
Residential Dishwashers contain quotes from actual retailers about 
their actual practices, quotes that directly contradict a DOE process 
that is based on no empirical evidence and on discredited theory. (Id.) 
AHAM commented that DOE cannot ignore data that contradicts its 
analysis and must take these comments into account or its analysis will 
lack the support of facts and a resulting standard could be arbitrary 
and capricious. (Id.)
    DOE's incremental markup approach assumes that an increase in 
operating profits, which is implied by keeping a fixed markup when the 
product price goes up, is unlikely to be viable over time in a 
reasonably competitive market like household appliance retailers. The 
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (``HHI'') reported by the 2017 Economic 
Census indicates that the household appliance stores sector (NAICS 
443141) is a competitive marketplace.\53\ DOE recognizes that actors in 
the distribution chains are likely to seek to maintain the same markup 
on appliances in response to changes in manufacturer selling prices 
after an amendment to energy conservation standards. However, DOE 
believes that retail pricing is likely to adjust over time as those 
actors are forced to readjust their markups to reach a medium-term 
equilibrium in which per-unit profit is relatively unchanged before and 
after standards are implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 2017 Economic Census, Selected sectors: Concentration of 
largest firms for the U.S. Data table available at www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/economic-census/naics-sector-44-45.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE acknowledges that markup practices in response to amended 
standards are complex and varying with business conditions. However, 
DOE's analysis necessarily considers a very simplified and hypothetical 
version of the world of appliance retailing: namely, a situation in 
which nothing changes except for those changes in appliance offerings 
that occur in response to amended standards. Obtaining data on markup 
practices in the situation described above is very challenging. Hence, 
DOE continues to maintain that its assumption that standards do not 
facilitate a sustainable increase in profitability is reasonable.
    AGA asserted that DOE's data source for developing markups in the 
February 2023 SNOPR for consumer cooking products differs from the data 
source used for rulemakings for other products. (AGA, No. 2279 at p. 
40)
    DOE's methodology for estimating markups is product specific and 
dependent on the type of distribution channels through which products 
move from manufacturers to purchasers. DOE uses the best available data 
to estimate markups for identified distribution channels for a given 
product. In the case of consumer cooking products, DOE identified the 
retail channel as the

[[Page 11472]]

dominant distribution channel and estimated markups using data from 
Census Bureau 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey (ARTS).
    Chapter 6 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's 
development of markups for consumer conventional cooking products.

E. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual 
energy consumption of consumer conventional cooking products at 
different efficiencies in representative U.S. single-family homes and 
multi-family residences, and to assess the energy savings potential of 
increased consumer conventional cooking products efficiency. The energy 
use analysis estimates the range of energy use of consumer conventional 
cooking products in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by 
consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other 
analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings 
and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from 
adoption of new or amended standards.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE used 2019 California Residential 
Application Saturation Study (``RASS'') \54\ and 2021 field-metered 
data from the Pecan Street Project.\55\ From the Pecan Street data, DOE 
performed an analysis of 39 households in Texas and 28 households in 
New York to develop average annual energy consumption values for each 
State. In the absence of similar field-metered data for other States, 
DOE weighted the average annual energy use results from California 
(from CA RASS 2019), Texas, and New York by the number of households in 
each State to estimate an average National energy use value more 
representative than any individual State measurement. DOE calculated a 
household-weighted National value using the average values from Texas, 
New York, and California and estimates for the number of households in 
each State from the U.S. Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Available at www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/surveys/2019-residential-appliance-saturation-study.
    \55\ Available at www.pecanstreet.org/dataport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE established a range of energy use 
from data in the EIA's 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey 
(``RECS 2015'').\56\ RECS 2015 does not provide the annual energy 
consumption of cooking tops, but it does provide the frequency of 
cooking top use.\57\ DOE was unable to use the frequency of use to 
calculate the annual energy consumption using a bottom-up approach, as 
data in RECS 2015 did not include information about the duration of a 
cooking event to allow for an annual energy use calculation. DOE relied 
on California RASS 2021 and Pecan Street Project data to establish the 
average annual energy consumption of a conventional cooking top and a 
conventional oven.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information 
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2015 RECS 
Survey Data (2019). Available at: www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/. RECS 2015 is based on a sample of 5,686 
households statistically selected to represent 118.2 million housing 
units in the United States. Available at: www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/.
    \57\ DOE was unable to use the frequency of use to calculate the 
annual energy consumption using a bottom-up approach, as data in 
RECS did not include information about the duration of a cooking 
event to allow for an annual energy use calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received 
regarding the energy use analysis conducted for the February 2023 
SNOPR. The approach used for this direct final rule is largely the same 
approach DOE had used for the February 2023 SNOPR analysis.
    In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, AHAM questioned whether DOE 
uses RECS end-use energy consumption estimates and has reviewed the 
underlying analyses and equations for allocating energy by end use and 
the related regression or similar statistics for RECS consumption data. 
(AHAM, No. 127 at p. 3)
    DOE's energy use analysis for consumer conventional cooking 
products does not make use of end-use energy consumption estimates in 
RECS. As described in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE used available 
field-metered data to estimate the average annual energy use of 
consumer conventional cooking products. DOE used RECS responses on the 
frequency of use to establish a range of energy consumption values.
    In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, AHAM commented that DOE 
should retain its current estimate of cooking cycles since DOE has 
computed an average number of cooking cycles per year at 418 based on 
the 2015 RECS, which essentially agrees with RECS 2020 data and points 
to stability in cooking behavior over the past several years. (AHAM, 
No. 2285 at p. 44)
    In response to the August 2023 NODA, AGA et al. commented that DOE 
should update the consumer sample to the more recent and larger RECS 
2020 sample rather than rely on RECS 2015 as done in the February 2023 
SNOPR and August 2023 NODA. (AGA et al., No. 10112 at pp. 11-12)
    DOE agrees with AHAM's assessment that the average number of 
cooking cycles remains similar between RECS 2015 and RECS 2020 
reflecting stability in cooking behavior in recent years. For this 
direct final rule, DOE has updated the consumer sample to RECS 2020 to 
estimate the variability in cooking energy use.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information 
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2020 RECS 
Survey Data (2023). Available at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM noted that while there may have been some change in cooking at 
home during the COVID pandemic, it is too soon to determine whether 
there is a long-term trend for more home-cooked meals and DOE should 
wait to assess this until the next round of standards when more data 
will be available. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 44)
    For this direct final rule, DOE includes more recent 2022 Pecan 
Street Project data in its estimate of the annual energy use for 
consumer conventional cooking products. These data are less influenced 
by the impacts of the COVID pandemic and more representative of current 
cooking product usage.
    Whirlpool commented that by lessening the utility of consumer 
conventional cooking products such as gas stoves and ranges, the 
standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR may have the unintended 
effect of influencing consumers to maintain the level of cooking 
performance they require through less efficient, less cost effective, 
and more carbon-intensive alternatives (e.g., eat outside of the home 
more frequently, cater food, or use an outdoor grill). (Whirlpool, No. 
2284 at pp. 7-8)
    As discussed in section V.B.4 of this document, DOE has determined 
that the standards adopted in this direct final rule will not lessen 
the utility or performance of the consumer conventional cooking 
products under consideration in this rulemaking. Therefore, DOE does 
not expect and is unaware of any data to indicate that the performance 
standards adopted in this direct final rule would cause a meaningful 
change in consumers' cooking behavior.
    NPGA recommended that DOE adopt kBtu/year as the unit of measure 
for reporting the energy use of both electric and gas cooking products, 
which is consistent with DOE's use of FFC analysis in the rule, to 
better facilitate the comparison between fuel types. (NPGA, No. 2270 at 
pp. 3, 6)
    For the purposes of calculating consumer costs in the LCC, DOE's 
presentation of site energy consumption

[[Page 11473]]

values for electric and gas products is aligned with the measure of 
energy consumption most familiar to consumers and the unit used for 
calculating consumer energy bills. For example, electric utilities 
typically charge by the kWh rather than by kBtu. DOE also notes that 
the units used in presenting energy consumption align with the energy 
units used in the DOE test procedure. DOE continues to calculate and 
present full-fuel cycle national energy savings for gas and electric in 
quadrillions of Btus (``quads'').
    Chapter 7 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's 
energy use analysis for consumer conventional cooking products.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for 
consumer conventional cooking products. The effect of new or amended 
energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves 
a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE 
used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
     The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or 
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed 
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales 
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy 
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE 
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them 
over the lifetime of the product.
     The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it 
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for 
the year that new or amended standards are assumed to take effect.
    For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC 
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the 
estimated efficiency distribution of consumer conventional cooking 
products in the absence of new or amended energy conservation 
standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given efficiency level is 
measured relative to the baseline product.
    For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE 
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of 
housing units. As stated previously, DOE developed household samples 
from the 2020 RECS. For each sample household, DOE determined the 
energy consumption for the consumer conventional cooking products and 
the appropriate energy price. By developing a representative sample of 
households, the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption 
and energy prices associated with the use of consumer conventional 
cooking products.
    For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received 
regarding the LCC analysis conducted for the February 2023 SNOPR. The 
approach used for this direct final rule is largely the same approach 
DOE had used for the February 2023 SNOPR analysis.
    In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, AHAM commented that RECS is 
a comprehensive and extremely valuable survey program providing many 
important insights, but DOE pushes the survey data further than it can 
support and in doing so, DOE is introducing ``outlier'' values into its 
LCC analysis and then assuming that those outlier households with very 
high energy consumption are just as likely as any other household to 
select an energy efficient appliance absent standards (i.e., in the no-
new-standards case). (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 51-52) AHAM commented that 
the effect of this process is that the mean (or average) LCC savings at 
any standard level are significantly higher than the median (50th 
percentile) where ordinarily in a statistical distribution, the mean 
and the median should be relatively close together. (Id.) AHAM stated 
that it and AHRI have commented on this and some of the reasons to 
treat the RECS data with caution in numerous rulemakings and both 
commenters and others have proposed that DOE use medians rather than 
means to avoid many of the random assignment and data issues. (Id.)
    DOE notes that there is no indication that any of households in the 
RECS sample represent non-valid data that should be excluded as an 
outlier. Excluding minimum and maximum values from the field-based 
usage statistics would result in a less accurate representation of the 
actual energy consumption patterns exhibited by households 
participating in the survey. However, as a standardized approach, DOE 
presents all statistic results of LCC savings in chapter 8 of its TSD 
(i.e., histograms or box plots). This approach allows stakeholders to 
observe the full range of LCC savings and understand the distribution 
of results, enabling a more informed evaluation of the potential 
impacts of the proposed standards. In addition, DOE's decision on 
amended standards is not solely determined by (mean) LCC savings. While 
LCC savings play a role, they may be considered alongside other 
critical factors, including the percentage of negatively impacted 
consumers, the simple payback period, and the overall impact on 
manufacturers.
    Strauch recommended that DOE explicitly address dual-fuel ranges. 
(Strauch, No. 2263 at p. 3)
    DOE notes that RECS 2020 identifies households with dual-fuel 
ranges and those consumers are included in the LCC analysis. Those 
households are represented in the analysis as having a gas cooking top 
and an electric oven.
    Inputs to the LCC calculation include the installed cost to the 
consumer, operating expenses, the lifetime of the product, and a 
discount rate. Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost 
include the cost of the product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer 
markups, retailer and distributor markups, and sales taxes--and 
installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses 
include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, 
repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. 
Inputs to the payback period calculation include the installed cost to 
the consumer and first year operating expenses. DOE created 
distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales 
taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their 
uncertainty and variability.
    The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte 
Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the 
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from 
the probability distributions and consumer conventional cooking 
products user samples. For this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is 
implemented in MS Excel together with the Crystal Ball\TM\ add-on.\59\ 
The model calculated the LCC for products at each efficiency level for 
10,000 housing units per simulation run. The analytical results include 
a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings 
for a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards case 
efficiency

[[Page 11474]]

distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation 
for a given consumer, product efficiency is chosen based on its 
probability. If the chosen product efficiency is greater than or equal 
to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC 
calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by the standard 
level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more-efficient 
products, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing 
product efficiency. DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for consumers of 
consumer conventional cooking products as if each were to purchase a 
new product in the first year of required compliance with new or 
amended standards. For TSLs other than TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL 
detailed in the Joint Agreement), new and amended standards apply to 
consumer conventional cooking products manufactured 3 years after the 
date on which any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) Therefore, DOE used 2027 as the first year of 
compliance with any new or amended standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products for TSL 2 and 3. For TSL 1, DOE used 2028 as the first 
year of compliance for all product classes as specified for the 
Recommended TSL in the Joint Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Crystal Ball\TM\ is commercially available software tool to 
facilitate the creation of these types of models by generating 
probability distributions and summarizing results within Excel, 
available at www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/index.html (last accessed July 28, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV.25 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow 
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of 
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 
of the direct final rule TSD and its appendices.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.032

1. Product Cost
    To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs 
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described 
previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for 
baseline products and higher-efficiency products, because DOE applies 
an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-
efficiency products.
    Economic literature and historical data suggest that the real costs 
of many products may trend downward over time according to ``learning'' 
or ``experience'' curves. Experience curve analysis implicitly includes 
factors such as efficiencies in labor, capital investment, automation, 
materials prices, distribution, and economies of scale at an industry-
wide level.\60\ In the experience curve method, the real cost of 
production is related to the cumulative production or ``experience'' 
with a manufactured product. To project future product prices, DOE 
examined the electric and gas cooking products Producer Price Index 
(``PPI''). These indices, adjusted for inflation, show a declining 
trend. DOE performed a power-law fit of historical PPI data and 
cumulative shipments. For the electric cooking products price trend, 
DOE used the ``Electric household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units 
and equipment'' PPI for 1967-2022.\61\ For the gas cooking product 
price trend, DOE used the ``Gas household ranges, ovens, surface 
cooking units and equipment'' for 1981-2022.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Taylor, M. and Fujita, K.S. Accounting for Technological 
Change in Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. 
LBNL-6195E. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. 
April 2013. Available at escholarship.org/uc/item/3c8709p4#page-1.
    \61\ Electric household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and 
equipment PPI series ID: PCU33522033522011; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
    \62\ Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units, and 
equipment PPI series ID; PCU33522033522013; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received

[[Page 11475]]

regarding the methodology for calculating consumer product costs that 
was presented in the February 2023 SNOPR. The approach used for this 
direct final rule is largely the same approach DOE had used for the 
February 2023 SNOPR analysis.
    In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, AHAM commented that it and 
several other stakeholders have showed in previous rulemakings there is 
little to no theoretical underpinning for why an ``experience or 
learning curve'' should exist that would reduce the expected extra 
manufacturing costs required to meet proposed standard levels, what 
functional form it should take and, even, whether it should be a 
continuous function. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 51) AHAM commented that the 
experience or learning curve is merely an empirical relationship, and 
as such, there needs to be a clear connection between the actual 
products in question and the data used to develop the relationship. 
(Id.) AHAM commented that analogs are of highly questionable 
applicability, that when the data takes a new shape, DOE must adjust 
its equations to reflect that change, and that continuing to use old 
data and equations simply to create a longer time series is not 
acceptable. (Id.)
    DOE notes that there is considerable empirical evidence of 
consistent price declines for appliances in the past few decades. 
Several studies examined refrigerator retail prices during different 
periods of time and showed that prices had been steadily falling while 
efficiency had been increasing, for example Dale et al. (2009) \63\ and 
Taylor et al. (2015).\64\ As mentioned in Taylor and Fujita (2013),\65\ 
Federal agencies have adopted different approaches to account for ``the 
changing future compliance costs that might result from technological 
innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.'' Given the limited data 
availability on historical manufacturing costs broken down by different 
components, DOE utilized the PPI published by the BLS as a proxy for 
manufacturing costs to represent the analyzed product as a whole. While 
products may experience varying degrees of price learning during 
different product stages, DOE modeled the average learning rate based 
on the full historical PPI series for ``electric household ranges, 
ovens, surface cooking units and equipment'' and ``gas household 
ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and equipment'' to capture the 
overall price evolution in relation to the cumulative shipments for 
electric and gas products, respectively. DOE also conducted sensitivity 
analyses that are based on a particular segment of the PPI data for 
household refrigerator manufacturing to investigate the impact of 
alternative product price projections (low price learning and high 
price learning) in the NIA of this direct final rule. For details of 
the sensitivity results, see appendix 10C of the direct final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Dale, L., C. Antinori, M. McNeil, James E. McMahon, and 
K.S. Fujita. Retrospective evaluation of appliance price trends. 
Energy Policy. 2009. 37 (2) pp. 597-605. doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.087.
    \64\ Taylor, M., C.A. Spurlock, and H.-C. Yang. Confronting 
Regulatory Cost and Quality Expectations. An Exploration of 
Technical Change in Minimum Efficiency Performance Standards. 2015. 
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United 
States). Report No. LBNL-1000576. Available at www.osti.gov/biblio/1235570/ (last accessed June 30, 2023).
    \65\ Taylor, M. and K.S. Fujita. Accounting for Technological 
Change in Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. 
2013. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United 
States). Report No. LBNL-6195E. Available at escholarship.org/uc/item/3c8709p4 (last accessed July 20, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ASAP et al. noted that DOE may be overestimating the price of EL 3 
for electric smooth element cooking tops. ASAP et al. expect that the 
price trend for units with induction technology will decline faster 
than the overall price trend associated with electric cooking products. 
(ASAP et al., No. 2273 at p. 4)
    DOE appreciates the comment on price learning for induction 
technology. DOE acknowledges that technologies at different maturity 
levels may experience different rates of price learning. However, the 
type of data required to develop a component-based price learning for 
cooking tops using induction technology is currently very limited. 
Hence, DOE applied the same learning rate to all electric cooking 
products in this direct final rule analysis.
    AGA asserted the equipment costs presented in the February 2023 
SNOPR do not reflect the costs of products available on the market as 
compared to ``Material costs'' listed in RS Means or products available 
from online retailers. (AGA, No. 2279 at p. 40)
    Equipment costs estimated in the February 2023 SNOPR characterize 
the retail price of products at each efficiency level, holding all 
other product characteristics and features constant, in the compliance 
year. The analysis explicitly attempts to estimate costs for each EL at 
scale, as if each EL were the new baseline product. This may differ 
from actual market conditions where more efficient options may be 
bundled with other non-efficiency related features or not currently 
manufactured at the same scale as the baseline product. Additionally, 
DOE applies price learning factors to estimate the equipment cost in 
the year of compliance based on trends observed in historical data, 
making comparisons with current market prices inappropriate.
    AGA asserted that in the February 2023 SNOPR analysis DOE used a 
simple national average sales tax in the LCC analysis that was 
inconsistent with other rulemakings. (AGA, No. 2279 at p. 40)
    For the February 2023 SNOPR and this direct final rule, DOE used 
State-level data downloaded from the Sales Tax Clearinghouse to capture 
the geographic variability in sales tax.\66\ The data are aggregated to 
the Census Division level based on projected State populations in the 
compliance year and assigned to households in the consumer sample. DOE 
notes that the calculated average presented in the February 2023 SNOPR 
TSD is a population-weighted value, rather than a simple average, and 
is not directly used in the LCC Monte Carlo analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Available at thestc.com/STRates.stm (last accessed on 
August 17, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For additional details, see chapter 8 of the TSD of this direct 
final rule.
2. Installation Cost
    Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous 
materials and parts needed to install the product that could vary by 
efficiency.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE used data from the 2021 RS Means 
Mechanical Cost Data \67\ on labor requirements to estimate 
installation costs for consumer conventional cooking products. In 
general, DOE estimated that installation costs would be the same for 
different efficiency levels and for both electric and gas products. In 
the case of electric smooth element cooking top product classes, the 
induction heating at EL 3 requires a change of cookware to ones that 
are ferromagnetic to operate the cooking tops in addition to an upgrade 
to existing electrical wiring to accommodate for a higher amperage. DOE 
treated this as additional installation cost for this particular design 
option. DOE used an average number of pots and pans utilized by a 
representative household to estimate this portion of the installation 
cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ RS Means Company Inc., RS Means Mechanical Cost Data 
(2021). Available at rsmeans.com (last accessed on June 23, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received 
regarding the methodology for calculating installation costs that was 
presented in the February 2023 SNOPR.

[[Page 11476]]

The approach used for this direct final rule is largely the same 
approach DOE had used for the February 2023 SNOPR analysis.
    In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, AGA commented that DOE's 
LCC model makes simplified cost assumptions about cooking tops, 
beginning with unrealistically low assumptions about installation for 
both labor and equipment needed. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 35-36) AGA 
commented that equipment and installation costs should vary by region, 
building type, installation site, and within a specific product class 
by more than a few dollars as determined by DOE. (Id.) AGA commented 
that DOE's model includes the same installation cost for both gas or 
electric appliances and ignores the fact that, for example, a gas 
hookup can involve different steps and safety procedures that can 
change the average labor cost compared to electric products. (Id.)
    DOE acknowledges that cost of installation may vary by installation 
location and fuel type. In this direct final rule, DOE derived fuel-
specific installation costs for electric and gas products as well as 
geographic-dependent labor factors to account for the variability in 
installation costs in its LCC analysis. DOE assumed that average values 
derived from RS Means 2022 \68\ would be representative of the national 
value for installation of electric products. For gas products, DOE 
included an additional labor cost including a gas plumber to perform 
any additional set-up specific to gas appliances. DOE developed 
geographic labor factors from RS Means 2022. DOE notes that that there 
were no data indicating that the installation cost varies with 
efficiency for electric ovens and gas cooking products and assigned the 
same installation cost to all efficiency levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ RS Means Company Inc., RS Means Mechanical Cost Data 
(2022). Available at rsmeans.com (last accessed on Aug. 3, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AGA questioned why additional material costs were included in the 
installation cost for induction units but not for other efficiency 
levels. (AGA, No. 2279 at p. 37)
    The installation of an induction electric smooth element cooking 
top requires additional costs for wiring upgrades and purchasing 
ferromagnetic pots that are not needed for non-induction electric 
smooth element cooking tops. A standard at EL 3 would require all 
electric smooth element cooking top consumers to purchase an induction 
unit, including the majority of consumers that would have purchased a 
non-induction unit in the no-new-standards case. For this reason, DOE 
includes the extra cost for materials in order to more accurately 
reflect the increase in installation costs that consumers will incur as 
a result of a standard. For all other product classes, DOE did not find 
evidence that material costs would differ between efficiency levels and 
therefore assumed that material costs would not increase as a result of 
a standard.
    ASAP et al. noted that, due to a lack of information about the 
existing amperage of electric circuits in homes, DOE assumed that 50 
percent of the user population would need wiring upgrades to meet EL 3; 
however, ASAP et al. stated that wiring upgrades may be necessary even 
in the base case for homes with older electric cooking tops and smaller 
breaker capacities (i.e., 30 amps). (ASAP et al., No. 2273 at p. 4)
    DOE acknowledges it is possible that wiring updates may be 
necessary in older homes in the no-new-standards case. However, 
households requiring wiring upgrades in both the no-new-standards case 
(i.e., the base case) and a standards case will not incur an additional 
cost attributable to a standard and, thus, will not impact the LCC 
savings calculation.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
    For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy consumption 
for a consumer conventional cooking product at different efficiency 
levels using the approach described previously in section IV.E of this 
document.
4. Energy Prices
    Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the 
incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher 
efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change 
in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE 
applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the product 
purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices 
for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other 
efficiency levels considered.
    DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 using data from EEI Typical 
Bills and Average Rates reports. Based upon comprehensive, industry-
wide surveys, this semi-annual report presents typical monthly electric 
bills and average kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as charged by 
investor-owned utilities. For the residential sector, DOE calculated 
electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and 
Beraki (2018).\69\ For the commercial sector, DOE calculated 
electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and 
Beraki (2019).\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential Electricity 
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence 
Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001169. 
Available at ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review.
    \70\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Non-residential 
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. 
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-
2001203. ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE obtained data for calculating regional prices of natural gas in 
2022 from the EIA publication, Natural Gas Navigator.\71\ This 
publication presents monthly volumes of natural gas deliveries and 
average prices by State for residential, commercial, and industrial 
customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 
Administration. Natural Gas Navigator 2022. Available at 
www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.php (last accessed July 28, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's methodology allows electricity and natural gas prices to vary 
by sector, region, and season. In the analysis, variability in 
electricity prices is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer 
economic and energy use characteristics are defined in the LCC 
analysis. For consumer conventional cooking products, DOE calculated 
weighted-average values for average and marginal electricity and gas 
prices for the nine census divisions. See chapter 8 of the direct final 
rule TSD for details.
    To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2022 
energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes for 
each of the nine census divisions from the Reference case in AEO2023, 
which has an end year of 2050.\72\ To estimate price trends after 2050, 
the 2046-2050 average was used for all years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2023. Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ (last accessed Aug. 3, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ONE Gas commented that DOE's forecasting errors were compounded by 
price trends used in the calculations that do not reflect the return of 
natural gas prices to historically low levels following the COVID-19 
pandemic run up or the sharp increases in consumer electricity prices 
in States where electrification policies are driving all-electric new 
construction. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 6-7; ONE Gas, No. 10109 at p. 
4) ONE Gas commented that these are real relative consumer energy 
prices that tilt the consumer economics in favor of natural gas in the 
near term but that will have persistent impacts on future prices over 
the timeline of the rulemaking analysis. (Id.) ONE Gas

[[Page 11477]]

noted that DOE did not include supply chain price inflation that is 
already affecting first costs of consumer conventional cooking 
products. (Id.) ONE Gas commented that wholesale commodity prices 
appear to be leveling off, but consumer prices for durable goods have 
increased via a step function due to the war in Ukraine, the COVID-19 
pandemic, and other disruptions, and these costs will not be coming 
down via either economic recovery or recession. (Id.) ONE Gas commented 
that it anticipates that DOE's use of RECS 2015 data (instead of RECS 
2020) will exacerbate these deviations from real world prices and 
consumer LCC. (Id.)
    AGA commented that the February 2023 SNOPR uses an energy price 
forecast based on the AEO, which has consistently overestimated future 
natural gas energy costs. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 33-34; AGA et al., No. 
10112 at p. 7) ONE Gas provided similar comments, and noted that the 
forecast overstates LCC savings and paybacks for natural gas 
alternatives. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 5-6) AGA commented that the 
statistically biased outcome toward higher prices in the AEO reveals a 
need for DOE's analysis to use a distribution of prices in its model 
simulations and not a forecasted mean. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 33-34; AGA 
et al., No. 10112 at p. 7) ONE Gas commented that DOE uses single time 
series consumer energy price forecasts for electricity and gaseous 
fuels in contrast to the probability-weighted analysis input variables 
DOE has used in Monte Carlo simulations in the consumer LCC savings 
analysis. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 5-6)
    DOE maintains that the patterns of difference between AEO 
projections and actual energy prices do not reflect a systematic bias 
in the model used to prepare the AEO or the assumptions. The AEO2023 
projection for residential natural gas prices shows constant-dollar 
prices declining from the 2022-2023 spike and then increasing at a slow 
rate starting around 2030. Rather than use a distribution of prices, 
DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis using AEO2023 cases that exhibit 
higher and lower energy prices than the Reference projection. The 
analysis and results are described in appendix 8E of the direct final 
rule TSD.
    In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, the CO2 
Coalition requested that DOE explain the data supporting its proposed 
energy conservation standards for consumer cooking tops, including the 
data showing natural gas is cheaper than electricity. The 
CO2 Coalition commented that DOE cannot ignore a category of 
costs (e.g., upstream renewable energy generation costs) and stated 
that the CO2 Coalition was unable to understand how 
electricity, which costs 3.5 times more than natural gas, is more 
energy efficient. The CO2 Coalition requested additional 
information regarding how DOE computed the anticipated savings 
attributed to the proposed standards. (The CO2 Coalition, 
No. 2275 at pp. 6-7)
    In response to the August 2023 NODA, ONE Gas and AGA et al. 
commented that the DOE's recently published representative average unit 
costs of energy indicates that natural gas is more affordable that 
other fuels including electricity on a unit cost basis. (ONE Gas, No. 
10109 at pp. 1-2; AGA et al., No. 101112 at p. 7)
    DOE provides the methodology and data sources for calculating 
energy cost savings by geographic location in Chapter 8 of the TSD and 
energy cost accounting in Chapter 15 of the TSD. The representative 
average unit referenced by ONE Gas and AGA et al. are used by 
manufacturers to comply with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission 
(``FTC'') labeling requirements and do not capture the diversity in 
energy costs utilized in the LCC analysis.
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product 
components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are 
associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Typically, 
small incremental increases in product efficiency entail no, or only 
minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline 
efficiency products.
    For this direct final rule, DOE updated repair costs for all 
product classes based on available online data. For cooking tops, DOE 
used data from a 2022 Consumer Reports survey.\73\ DOE assumed a repair 
cost of $153 for a gas cooking top, $192 for a non-induction electric 
smooth element cooking top, and $536 for an induction electric smooth 
element cooking top. For ovens, DOE used data from an online appliance 
repair website that presented average values of $150 for electric ovens 
and $350 for gas ovens.\74\ With the exception of induction electric 
smooth element cooking tops, DOE notes repair costs do not vary by 
efficiency level, and remain the same in the no-new-standards and 
standards cases leading to no additional repair cost as a result of a 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Available at www.consumerreports.org/appliances/cooktops/should-you-repair-or-replace-your-broken-cooktop-a6490859316 (last 
accessed on Aug. 7, 2023).
    \74\ Available at www.fixr.com/costs/oven-repair (last accessed 
on Aug. 7, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Product Lifetime
    For consumer conventional cooking products, DOE used a variety of 
sources to establish low, average, and high estimates for product 
lifetime. Additionally, DOE used AHAM's input on the average useful 
life by product category, such as electric range, gas range, wall oven, 
and electric cooking top. Utilizing this detail and the market shares 
of these product categories, DOE estimated the average lifetime 
estimates to be 16.8 years for all electric cooking products and 14.5 
years for all gas cooking products. DOE characterized the product 
lifetimes with Weibull probability distributions.
7. Discount Rates
    In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate 
to households to estimate the present value of future expenditures and 
savings. DOE estimated a distribution of discount rates for consumer 
conventional cooking products based on the opportunity cost of consumer 
funds.
    DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from 
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount 
rates.\75\ The LCC analysis estimates net present value over the 
lifetime of the product, so the appropriate discount rate will reflect 
the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking this time scale 
into account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC, the 
application of a marginal interest rate associated with an initial 
source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase, 
consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt and asset 
holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the restrictions 
consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the relative size 
of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the 
aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical distribution 
of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer 
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with 
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate 
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net 
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the 
influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and 
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a 
consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is 
not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of 
factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the 
opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases.

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

[[Page 11478]]

    To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE 
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to 
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance 
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the 
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data 
from the Federal Reserve Board's triennial Survey of Consumer Finances 
\76\ (``SCF'') starting in 1995 and ending in 2019. Using the SCF and 
other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for each type of 
debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that may apply in 
the year in which new and amended standards would take effect. DOE 
assigned each sample household a specific discount rate drawn from one 
of the distributions. The average rate across all types of household 
debt and equity and income groups, weighted by the shares of each type, 
is 4.1 percent. See chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD for further 
details on the development of consumer discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 
Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 
2013, 2016, and 2019. Available at www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm (last accessed Aug. 3, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received 
regarding the discount rates used in the February 2023 SNOPR. The 
approach used for this direct final rule is largely the same approach 
DOE had used for the February 2023 SNOPR analysis.
    In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, AHAM commented that DOE 
uses an inappropriate discount rate in its analysis of the effects of 
standards on low-income households, claiming that this analysis does 
not take into account issues of capital availability or the non-
financial costs from a purchase. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 49-50) AHAM 
also presented data from its survey work with Bellomy Research showing 
that the lowest 30-percent income groups have no discretionary income 
to save, making it impossible for these groups to rebalance their 
balance sheets after making a purchase. (Id.)
    With respect to the issue of DOE's methodology for estimating 
consumer discount rates, DOE maintains that the LCC is not predicting a 
purchase decision, as AHAM seems to interpret given a focus on the 
availability of cash for appliance purchases. Rather, the LCC estimates 
the net present value of the financial impact of a given standard level 
over the lifetime of the product (i.e., 14.5 years for gas cooking 
products and 16.8 years for electric cooking products) assuming the 
standard-compliant product has already been installed, and allows for 
comparison of this value across different hypothetical minimum 
efficiency levels. The LCC is applied to future-year energy costs and 
non-energy operations and maintenance costs in order to calculate the 
net present value of the appliance to a household at the time of 
installation. The consumer discount rate reflects the opportunity cost 
of receiving energy cost savings in the future, rather than at the time 
of purchase and installation. The opportunity cost of receiving 
operating cost savings in future years, rather than in the first year 
of the modeled period, is dependent on the rate of return that could be 
earned if invested into an interest-bearing asset or the interest cost 
accrual avoided by paying down debt. Consumers in all income groups 
generally hold a variety of assets (e.g., certificates of deposit, 
stocks, bonds) and debts (e.g., mortgage, credit cards, vehicle loan), 
which vary in amount over time as consumers allocate their earnings, 
make new investments, etc. Thus, the consumer discount rate is 
estimated as a weighted average of the rates and proportions of the 
various types of assets and debts held by households in each income 
group, as reported by the Survey of Consumer Finances. In the low-
income subgroup analysis, DOE separately evaluated the impact of 
increased efficiency standards on low-income households using discount 
rates estimated specifically for the low-income group.
    Whirlpool commented that DOE's analysis fails to account for the 
fact that many consumers, especially low-income consumers, finance 
their appliance purchases through loans or other methods, and any 
increase in the upfront cost of an appliance will have a direct impact 
on the cost of financing the appliance. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at p. 5) 
Whirlpool stated that financing comes at a cost that exceeds the face 
value of a product, specifically in cases in which consumers owe 
interest, and recommended that DOE account for these costs in the 
proposal. (Id.)
    In the case of gas cooking tops (standalone and as a component of a 
combined cooking product), the price differential between EL 1 (the 
adopted standard level) and baseline is $4.04 in 2028, the first year 
of compliance at the Recommended TSL. If a consumer purchases the more 
efficient unit on a credit card with a 25-percent APR, it would amount 
to an additional financing cost of only about $0.09 per month in the 
first year of leaving the balance on the card. While the compound 
interest could start to accumulate if the balance was left unpaid for 
an extended period of time (e.g., for the life of the appliance or 
longer), DOE contends that it would be an unusual case as the Survey of 
Consumer Finances shows that consumers across all income groups 
generally rebalance their assets and debts before a significant amount 
of interest is incurred.
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be 
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular 
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected 
distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-
standards case (i.e., the case without new or amended energy 
conservation standards) in the compliance year. This approach reflects 
the fact that some consumers may purchase products with efficiencies 
greater than the baseline levels in the absence of new or amended 
standards.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE estimated the efficiency 
distribution for each product class of cooking tops from the tested 
efficiencies of cooking tops used to develop the SNOPR engineering 
analysis. For ovens, DOE relied on model counts of the current market 
distribution. Given the lack of data on historic efficiency trends, DOE 
assumed that the estimated current distributions would apply in the 
compliance year in the no-new-standards case.
    In the February 2023 NODA, DOE clarified that the efficiency 
distribution for gas cooking tops presented in the February 2023 SNOPR 
did not include higher-efficiency ``entry-level'' products \77\ that 
were not included in the development of efficiency levels. Based on its 
testing results and model counts of the burner/grate configurations of 
gas cooking top models currently available on the websites of major 
U.S. retailers, DOE estimated in the February 2023 NODA that the 
products that were screened out of the engineering analysis represent 
over 40 percent of the market and exceed the max tech efficiency 
levels. DOE further estimated that nearly half of the total gas cooking 
top market currently meets or exceeds the max tech level. 88 FR 12605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ As discussed in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD, DOE 
defined products that do not have at least one HIR burner and 
continuous cast-iron grates as ``entry-level.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multiple stakeholders questioned DOE's methodology for estimating 
the percentage of gas cooking tops that

[[Page 11479]]

would meet the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR and August 
2023 NODA. AHAM stated that DOE did not provide data in the February 
2023 SNOPR or TSD to support the assertion that nearly half of the gas 
cooking tops meet the proposed standard. (AHAM, No. 127 at p. 2) NPGA 
commented that the method by which DOE arrived at the market share of 
gas cooking tops screened out of the February 2023 SNOPR is suspect. 
(NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 10) The Institute for Energy Research (``IER'') 
stated that DOE provides no support to the assertion made in the 
February 2023 NODA that nearly half of the total gas cooking tops 
market currently achieve EL 2. (IER, No. 2274 at pp. 5-6) Western 
Alliance Energy commented that DOE issued conflicting information 
between the February 2023 SNOPR and the August 2023 NODA regarding the 
market share of gas cooking tops that would be able to meet the 
proposed standard. (Western Alliance Energy, No. 2272 at p. 3) AHAM 
commented that DOE has presented contradictory information and data 
regarding the percentage of compliant gas cooking tops, using its test 
sample in the February 2023 SNOPR and including model counts based on 
product features in the August 2023 NODA. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 13-15) 
Spire stated its concern regarding DOE's assumption that all gas 
cooking top products lacking both HIR burners and cast-iron grates meet 
the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR because DOE tested 
only two such products. (Spire, No. 2710 at pp. 5-7)
    NAHB commented that gas ranges are crucial for affordable housing 
as they represent the more affordable end of the product spectrum and 
are often used in starter homes and dwellings with limited kitchen 
sizes. (NAHB, No. 2288 at p. 2) NAHB commented that DOE's methodology 
investigated product samples that are not representative of the overall 
product market, by oversampling gas cooking tops versus gas ranges, 
with outcomes that penalize cooking tops that are part of a range. 
(Id.) NAHB commented that many consumer-preferred ranges will likely be 
unable to comply with the standards proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 
despite being a popular consumer choice. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that DOE must demonstrate that its proposed rule is 
based on adequate data and is not arbitrary and capricious and added 
that DOE should not proceed to a final rule without ensuring that its 
test sample is representative of the market. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 6-
8) AHAM commented that although it conducted testing in support of its 
comments, the AHAM test sample does not solve the representativeness 
issue. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that its data show that in its test sample, DOE 
significantly under-sampled gas ranges, which represent a majority of 
gas cooking top shipments in 2022 and over-sampled gas standalone 
cooking tops, then relied on these test samples as representative of 
the market, representing a significant error. (Id. at p. 6) AHAM 
presented shipment data stating that 86.7 percent of gas cooking tops 
were shipped as part of gas ranges in 2022, whereas DOE's test sample 
only includes 38.1 percent of gas ranges. (Id.) AHAM presented a table 
showing that gas and electric ranges represented 91 percent of the 
total cooking products shipped in 2022. (Id. at p. 27)
    AHAM commented that its data show that in its test sample, DOE 
significantly over-sampled induction cooking tops among electric 
products. (Id. at p. 6) AHAM presented 2022 shipment data stating that 
4.6 percent of electric cooking tops were induction, whereas they 
represent 40.9 percent of DOE's test sample. (Id.) AHAM also presented 
2022 shipment data stating that 25.6 percent of electric cooking tops 
use open (coil) elements, whereas they only represent 9.1 percent of 
DOE's test sample. (Id.)
    ASAP et al. supported DOE's estimate of the percentage of gas 
cooking tops on the market that meet the standard proposed in the 
February 2023 SNOPR. (ASAP et al., No. 2273 at p. 3)
    In the August 2023 NODA, DOE updated its analysis in response to 
stakeholder data and information received in response to the February 
2023 SNOPR. 88 FR 50810, 50811. For electric cooking tops, DOE used 
AHAM shipment data to calculate an updated efficiency distribution 
incorporating weightings for electric smooth element cooking tops are 
that are sold as components of conventional ranges (93.4 percent) and 
as a standalone unit (6.6 percent), as well as weightings for radiant 
technology (93.8 percent) and induction technology (6.2 percent). Id. 
at 88 FR 50814. For gas cooking tops, DOE presented updated efficiency 
levels based on substantive feedback provided by stakeholders (see 
section IV.C.1.a of this document) and presented updated efficiency 
distributions incorporating weightings for gas cooking tops are that 
are sold as components of conventional ranges (86.7 percent) and as a 
standalone unit (13.3 percent), as well as weightings for entry-level 
cooking tops (40 percent) and non-entry-level \78\ cooking tops (60 
percent). Id. at 88 FR 50815. DOE notes that the expanded data set 
shows that not all entry-level gas cooking tops achieve the updated EL 
2 efficiency, and that the updated efficiency distributions reflect 
this fact. Id. In the August 2023 NODA, DOE maintained the same 
efficiency distributions for electric and gas ovens as was used in the 
February 2023 SNOPR. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ As discussed in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD, DOE 
defined products that feature at least one HIR burner and continuous 
cast-iron grates as ``non-entry-level''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ONE Gas asserted that DOE characterizing gas cooking tops as entry-
level or non-entry-level is antithetical to DOE's rulemaking 
responsibilities for setting energy efficiency standards for covered 
products generally and ad hoc and undefined with respect to DOE's 
responsibility for defining consumer benefits. (ONE Gas, No. 10109 at 
p. 3) ONE Gas commented that it understood the characterization of 
entry-level products as an attempt to capture low-income consumer 
products. (Id.) ONE Gas asserted that this interpretation is 
unwarranted without additional description of how DOE uses such 
characterizations, an analysis of the economic burden that these types 
of minimum efficiency standards could impose, and an analysis on the 
income effect of standards. (Id.) ONE Gas commented that entry-level 
gas products represent the most viable and cost-effective energy 
solution and asserted that by characterizing these products as such, 
DOE presumes that consumers will upgrade to more expensive products.
    In response to ONE Gas's assertion that DOE characterizing gas 
cooking tops as entry-level or non-entry-level is ad hoc and 
antithetical to DOE's rulemaking responsibilities, DOE notes that the 
categorization was used for the purposes of defining the no-new-
standards case efficiency distributions. DOE notes that entry-level gas 
cooking tops, while being typically the cheapest products, are also 
often the most efficient and that all of the entry-level gas cooking 
tops in DOE's expanded test sample meet the adopted standard level.
    ASAP et al. commented in support of the updated no-new-standards 
case market share estimates for electric smooth element cooking tops 
and gas cooking tops based on shipment estimates recently provided by 
manufacturers. (ASAP et al., No. 10113 at p. 1)
    For this direct final rule, DOE used the methodology from the 
August 2023

[[Page 11480]]

NODA to estimate efficiency distributions for electric smooth element 
cooking top product classes, gas cooking top product classes, electric 
oven product classes, and gas oven product classes. As in the February 
2023 SNOPR, DOE assumed no efficiency trend.
    The estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case for 
consumer conventional cooking products are shown in Table IV.26 through 
Table IV.29. See chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD for further 
information on the derivation of the efficiency distributions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.036


[[Page 11481]]


    The LCC Monte Carlo simulations draw from the efficiency 
distributions and randomly assign an efficiency to the consumer 
conventional cooking products purchased by each sample household in the 
no-new-standards case. The resulting percent shares within the sample 
match the market shares in the efficiency distributions.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE performed a random assignment of 
efficiency levels to consumers in its Monte Carlo sample. While DOE 
acknowledges that economic factors may play a role when consumers 
decide on what type of conventional cooking product to install, 
assignment of conventional cooking product efficiency for a given 
installation, based solely on economic measures such as life-cycle cost 
or simple payback period, most likely would not fully and accurately 
reflect actual real-world installations. There are a number of market 
failures discussed in the economics literature that illustrate how 
purchasing decisions with respect to energy efficiency are unlikely to 
be perfectly correlated with energy use, as described below. DOE 
maintains that the method of assignment, which is in part random, is a 
reasonable approach, because it simulates behavior in the conventional 
cooking product market, where market failures result in purchasing 
decisions not being perfectly aligned with economic interests, more 
realistically than relying only on apparent cost-effectiveness criteria 
derived from the limited information in RECS. DOE further emphasizes 
that its approach does not assume that all purchasers of consumer 
conventional cooking product make economically irrational decisions 
(i.e., the lack of a correlation is not the same as a negative 
correlation). As part of the random assignment, some homes or buildings 
with more frequent cooking events will be assigned higher efficiency 
conventional cooking products, and some homes or buildings with 
particularly lower cooking events will be assigned baseline units. By 
using this approach, DOE acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in the 
data and minimizes any bias in the analysis by using random assignment, 
as opposed to assuming certain market conditions that are unsupported 
given the available evidence.
    The following discussion provides more detail about the various 
market failures that affect consumer conventional cooking product 
purchases. First, consumers are motivated by more than simple financial 
trade-offs. There are several behavioral factors that can influence the 
purchasing decisions of complicated multi-attribute products, such as 
consumer conventional cooking products. For example, consumers (or 
decision makers in an organization) are highly influenced by choice 
architecture, defined as the framing of the decision, the surrounding 
circumstances of the purchase, the alternatives available, and how they 
are presented for any given choice scenario.\79\ The same consumer or 
decision maker may make different choices depending on the 
characteristics of the decision context (e.g., the timing of the 
purchase, competing demands for funds), which have nothing to do with 
the characteristics of the alternatives themselves or their prices. 
Consumers or decision makers also face a variety of other behavioral 
phenomena including loss aversion, sensitivity to information salience, 
and other forms of bounded rationality.\80\ Thaler, who won the Nobel 
Prize in Economics in 2017 for his contributions to behavioral 
economics, and Sunstein point out that these behavioral factors are 
strongest when the decisions are complex and infrequent, when feedback 
on the decision is muted and slow, and when there is a high degree of 
information asymmetry.\81\ These characteristics describe almost all 
purchasing situations of appliances and equipment, including consumer 
conventional cooking products. The installation of a new or replacement 
consumer conventional cooking products is done very infrequently, as 
evidenced by the mean lifetime of 14.5 years for gas cooking products 
and 16.8 years for electric cooking products. Further, if the purchaser 
of the consumer conventional cooking product is not the entity paying 
the energy costs (e.g., a building owner and tenant), there may be 
little to no feedback on the purchase. Additionally, there are 
systematic market failures that are likely to contribute further 
complexity to how products are chosen by consumers, as explained in the 
following paragraphs. The first of these market failures--the split-
incentive or principal-agent problem--is likely to significantly affect 
consumer conventional cooking products. The principal-agent problem is 
a market failure that results when the consumer that purchases the 
equipment does not internalize all of the costs associated with 
operating the equipment. Instead, the user of the product, who has no 
control over the purchase decision, pays the operating costs. There is 
a high likelihood of split-incentive problems in the case of rental 
properties where the landlord makes the choice of what consumer 
conventional cooking product to install, whereas the renter is 
responsible for paying energy bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., and Balz, J.P. (2014). 
``Choice Architecture'' in The Behavioral Foundations of Public 
Policy, Eldar Shafir (ed).
    \80\ Thaler, R.H., and Bernartzi, S. (2004). ``Save More 
Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics in Increase Employee Savings,'' 
Journal of Political Economy 112(1), S164-S187. See also Klemick, 
H., et al. (2015) ``Heavy-Duty Trucking and the Energy Efficiency 
Paradox: Evidence from Focus Groups and Interviews,'' Transportation 
Research Part A: Policy & Practice, 77, 154-166 (providing evidence 
that loss aversion and other market failures can affect otherwise 
profit-maximizing firms).
    \81\ Thaler, R.H., and Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: Improving 
Decisions on Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale 
University Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the split-incentive problem, there are other market 
failures that are likely to affect the choice of consumer conventional 
cooking product efficiency made by consumers. For example, unplanned 
replacements due to unexpected failure of equipment such as a consumer 
conventional cooking products are strongly biased toward like-for-like 
replacement (i.e., replacing the non-functioning equipment with a 
similar or identical product). Time is a constraining factor during 
unplanned replacements, and consumers may not consider the full range 
of available options on the market, despite their availability. The 
consideration of alternative product options is far more likely for 
planned replacements and installations in new construction.
    Additionally, Davis and Metcalf \82\ conducted an experiment 
demonstrating that, even when consumers are presented with energy 
consumption information, the nature of the information available to 
consumers (e.g., from EnergyGuide labels) results in an inefficient 
allocation of energy efficiency across households with different usage 
levels. Their findings indicate that households are likely to make 
decisions regarding the efficiency of the air conditioning equipment of 
their homes that do not result in the highest net present value for 
their specific usage pattern (i.e., their decision is based on 
imperfect information and, therefore, is not necessarily optimal). 
Also, most consumers did not properly understand the labels 
(specifically whether energy consumption and cost estimates were 
national averages or specific to their State). As such, consumers did 
not make the most informed decisions. Consumer conventional cooking 
products do not

[[Page 11482]]

require EnergyGuide labels, therefore energy consumption information is 
more difficult to determine for a consumer, resulting in an even more 
inefficient allocation of energy efficiency across households with 
different usage levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Davis, L.W., and G.E. Metcalf (2016): ``Does better 
information lead to better choices? Evidence from energy-efficiency 
labels,'' Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource 
Economists, 3(3), 589-625 (Available at: www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/686252) (Last accessed August 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In part because of the way information is presented, and in part 
because of the way consumers process information, there is also a 
market failure consisting of a systematic bias in the perception of 
equipment energy usage, which can affect consumer choices. Attari et 
al.\83\ show that consumers tend to underestimate the energy use of 
large energy-intensive appliances (such as air conditioners, 
dishwashers, and clothes dryers), but overestimate the energy use of 
small appliances (such as light bulbs). Therefore, it is possible that 
consumers systematically underestimate the energy use associated with 
consumer conventional cooking products, resulting in less cost-
effective purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Attari, S.Z., M.L. DeKay, C.I. Davidson, and W. Bruine de 
Bruin (2010): ``Public perceptions of energy consumption and 
savings.'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(37), 
16054-16059 (Available at: www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16054) (Last 
accessed August 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These market failures affect a sizeable share of the consumer 
population. A study by Houde \84\ indicates that there is a significant 
subset of consumers that appear to purchase appliances without taking 
into account their energy efficiency and operating costs at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Houde, S. (2018): ``How Consumers Respond to Environmental 
Certification and the Value of Energy Information,'' The RAND 
Journal of Economics, 49 (2), 453-477 (Available at: 
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1756-2171.12231) (Last 
accessed August 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existence of market failures in the residential sector is well 
supported by the economics literature and by a number of case studies. 
If DOE developed an efficiency distribution that assigned consumer 
conventional cooking product efficiency in the no-new-standards case 
solely according to energy use or economic considerations such as life-
cycle cost or payback period, the resulting distribution of 
efficiencies within the consumer sample would not reflect any of the 
market failures or behavioral factors above. Thus, DOE concludes such a 
distribution would not be representative of the consumer conventional 
cooking product market. Further, even if a specific household is not 
subject to the market failures above, the purchasing decision of 
conventional cooking product efficiency can be highly complex and 
influenced by a number of factors (e.g., aesthetics) not captured by 
the building characteristics available in the RECS sample. These 
factors can lead to households or building owners choosing a 
conventional cooking product efficiency that deviates from the 
efficiency predicted using only energy use or economic considerations 
such as life-cycle cost or payback period (as calculated using the 
information from RECS 2020).
    There is a complex set of behavioral factors, with sometimes 
opposing effects, affecting the consumer conventional cooking product 
market. It is impractical to model every consumer decision 
incorporating all of these effects at this extreme level of granularity 
given the limited available data. Given these myriad factors, DOE 
estimates the resulting distribution of such a model, if it were 
possible, would be very scattered with high variability. It is for this 
reason DOE utilizes a random distribution (after accounting for 
efficiency market share constraints) to approximate these effects. The 
methodology is not an assertion of economic irrationality, but instead, 
it is a methodological approximation of complex consumer behavior. The 
analysis is neither biased toward high or low energy savings. The 
methodology does not preferentially assign lower-efficiency 
conventional cooking products to households in the no-new-standards 
case where savings from the rule would be greatest, nor does it 
preferentially assign lower-efficiency conventional cooking products to 
households in the no-new-standards case where savings from the rule 
would be smallest. Some consumers were assigned the conventional 
cooking products that they would have chosen if they had engaged in 
perfect economic considerations when purchasing the products. Others 
were assigned less-efficient conventional cooking products even where a 
more-efficient product would eventually result in life-cycle savings, 
simulating scenarios where, for example, various market failures 
prevent consumers from realizing those savings. Still others were 
assigned conventional cooking products that were more efficient than 
one would expect simply from life-cycle costs analysis, reflecting, 
say, ``green'' behavior, whereby consumers ascribe independent value to 
minimizing harm to the environment.
    ASAP et al. commented that they believe DOE's assignment of 
efficiency levels in the no-new-standards case reasonably reflects 
actual consumer behavior. (ASAP et al., No. 2273 at pp. 1-2) ASAP et 
al. supported DOE's determination that its method of assigning cooking 
product efficiencies is more representative of actual consumer behavior 
than assigning efficiencies based solely on cost-effectiveness. (Id.)
    For this direct final rule, DOE performed a random assignment of 
efficiencies in the LCC analysis.
9. Payback Period Analysis
    The payback period is the amount of time (expressed in years) it 
takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-
efficient products, compared to baseline products, through energy cost 
savings. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product mean that 
the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced 
operating expenses.
    The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the 
change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the 
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. DOE 
refers to this as a ``simple PBP'' because it does not consider changes 
over time in operating cost savings. The PBP calculation uses the same 
inputs as the LCC analysis when deriving first-year operating costs.
    NPGA commented that DOE does not disclose how it calculated the 
estimated installation cost of a gas cooking top at the proposed 
standard level in the February 2023 SNOPR and asserted that the payback 
period for a compliant unit would be approximately 261 years. (NPGA, 
No. 2270 at p. 9)
    DOE's methodology for calculating installed cost and payback period 
is documented in chapter 8 of the TSD and in the LCC analytical 
spreadsheet.
    As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that 
a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the 
additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with 
an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the 
value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, 
as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE 
determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating 
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test 
procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price 
projection for the year in which compliance with the new and amended 
standards would be required.

G. Shipments Analysis

    DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the 
national impacts of potential new or amended energy conservation 
standards on energy use, NPV, and future

[[Page 11483]]

manufacturer cash flows.\85\ The shipments model takes an accounting 
approach, tracking market shares of each product class and the vintage 
of units in the stock. Stock accounting uses product shipments as 
inputs to estimate the age distribution of in-service product stocks 
for all years. The age distribution of in-service product stocks is a 
key input to calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating 
costs for any year depend on the age distribution of the stock. The 
shipments projections are based on historical data and an analysis of 
key market drivers for each product. For consumer conventional cooking 
products, DOE accounted for three market segments: (1) new 
construction, (2) existing homes (i.e., replacing failed products), and 
(3) retired but not replaced products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for 
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general, 
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received 
regarding its shipments analysis for the February 2023 SNOPR. The 
approach used for this direct final rule is largely the same approach 
DOE had used for the February 2023 SNOPR analysis.
    In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, Benjamin Zycher \86\ 
commented that despite DOE's assertion, estimated aggregate data on 
sales are available from market reports. (Zycher, No. 2266 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Although this individual commenter is associated with the 
American Enterprise Institute, the comment states that the views 
expressed in it should not be construed as representing any official 
position of the American Enterprise Institute. (Zycher, No. 2266 at 
p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE maintains that AHAM shipments data collected from consumer 
cooking product manufacturers present a more accurate estimate for 
annual national sales compared to estimates provided by third-party 
market reports.
    To determine new construction shipments, DOE used a forecast of new 
housing coupled with product market saturation data for new housing. 
For new housing completions and mobile home placements, DOE adopted the 
projections from EIA's AEO2023 through 2050. For subsequent years, DOE 
set the annual new housing completions fixed to the 2050 value.
    In response to February 2023 SNOPR, the National Multifamily 
Housing Council (``NMHC'') and National Apartment Association (``NAA'') 
recommended that DOE consider the impacts of this rulemaking on housing 
production and affordability to ensure that new cooking product 
efficiency requirements do not undermine efforts to address acute 
housing challenges in the United States. (NMHC and NAA, No. 2265 at pp. 
1-3)
    DOE notes that the estimated installed cost increase associated 
with the Recommended TSL under the Joint Agreement is less than one 
percent relative to the cost of a baseline unit for all product classes 
and is unlikely to impact housing production or affordability.
    DOE estimated replacements using product retirement functions 
developed from product lifetimes. DOE used retirement functions based 
on Weibull distributions. To reconcile the historical shipments with 
modeled shipments, DOE assumed that every retired unit is not 
necessarily replaced. DOE attributed the reason for this non-
replacement to building demolition occurring over the shipments 
analysis period. The not-replaced rate is distributed across electric 
and gas cooking products.
    DOE allocated shipments to each product class based on the current 
market share of the class. DOE developed the market shares based on 
data collected from the Appliance Magazine Market Research report \87\ 
and U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Appliance Magazine Market Research. The U.S. Appliance 
Industry: Market Value, Life Expectancy & Replacement Picture 2012.
    \88\ U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review: 2000 to YTD 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, ONE Gas commented that 
DOE's shipments analysis projects that electric cooking tops will 
account for 75 percent of the market share starting in 2027 to 2055, 
which fails to account for the introduction of technologically advanced 
and more energy-efficient gas appliances into the market, and 
subsequent increased market demand for such products. (ONE Gas, No. 
2289 at p. 11)
    DOE projects the market share of electric and gas cooking tops 
based on historical data. In both the February 2023 SNOPR and this 
direct final rule, DOE estimates that electric cooking tops (including 
electric open (coil) element cooking tops) account for approximately 60 
percent of the cooking top market, similar to the 2022 estimates from 
AHAM shipments data. DOE is unaware of data identifying future product 
launches of technologically advanced, energy-efficient gas appliances 
and their impact on the cooking top market and did not include such a 
trend in the shipments analysis.
    In response to the August 2023 NODA, AHAM commented that DOE 
projections overestimate savings because DOE has not incorporated a 
slower rate of adoption of new or replacement cooking tops as a result 
of a standard that reduces product features or performance. (AHAM, No. 
10116 at p. 25) AHAM asserted that a standard that diminishes product 
performance will extend the operating lifetime of existing, non-
compliant cooking tops, slowing the rate of adoption of new or 
replacement cooking tops that would result from reducing features or 
product performance. (Id.)
    As discussed, DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this 
direct final rule will not lessen the utility or performance of 
consumer conventional cooking products. Therefore, DOE finds no basis 
to conclude that shipments of new cooking tops would be affected by 
product performance in the standards case. For this direct final rule, 
DOE used the approach used in the August 2023 NODA for estimating 
shipments in standards cases.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE did not include the impact of the 
Inflation Reduction Act (``IRA'') or local electrification policies. 
Whirlpool commented that IRA rebates would incentivize consumers to 
purchase electric cooking products and should be included in the 
shipments model. (Whirlpool, No. 400 at p. 45) Whirlpool commented that 
it was not sure what level of impact that might have but that it could 
be included in the analysis. (Id.)
    For this direct final rule, DOE estimated the impact that the IRA 
and local electrification policies would have on product shipments in 
the no-new-standards and standards cases. The IRA apportions $4.3 
billion to homeowners to transition from gas products to electric 
products with a maximum rebate of $14,000 per household and up to $840 
specifically for cooking products. DOE estimated that the portion of 
IRA funding used for cooking products was proportional to the ratio of 
the maximum cooking product rebate with the total maximum household 
rebate. The rebate amount for which households are eligible is 
dependent on household income, ranging from 50 to 100 percent of the 
cooking product cost, with a maximum of $840. DOE conservatively 
assumed not all households would be eligible for the full rebate and 
that potential rebates would range from half the full rebate amount 
($420) to the full rebate amount ($840). DOE assumed a typical cooking 
product rebate of $630, the midpoint between these two values. From 
this analysis, DOE estimates that approximately 410,000 households over 
the period of 2023-2031 will voluntarily switch from gas cooking 
products to electric cooking

[[Page 11484]]

products, resulting in a 1.6-percent drop in gas cooking product 
shipments over this period. DOE also included the impact of local and 
State electrification policies that prohibit gas connections to new 
housing construction and would slightly increase shipments of electric 
cooking products. DOE notes that the impact of the IRA and local 
electrification policies is exogenous to the impact of an efficiency 
standard and is the same in the no-new-standards and standards cases.
    DOE received multiple comments from stakeholders regarding the 
impact standards may have in prompting consumers to switch fuel types 
for their cooking product.
    The AGs of LA et al.\89\ recommended that DOE consider whether 
regulation of gas cooking products will result in substitution to 
electric cooking products, with a corresponding increase in demand for 
electricity and attendant effects on a stretched power grid and 
pollution. (AGs of LA et al., No. 2264 at p. 12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ ``The AGs of LA et al.'' refers to a joint comment from the 
attorneys general of the States of Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, 
Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, 
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Representatives McMorris-Rodgers et al.\90\ stated that the 
consumer savings estimated in the February 2023 SNOPR for gas cooking 
tops do not justify the decreased features and functionality, and noted 
that these potential cost savings do not account for the cost of 
converting homes from gas to electric cooking, which Representatives 
McMorris-Rodgers et al. stated can total thousands of dollars per home. 
(Representatives McMorris-Rodgers et al., No. 765 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ ``Representatives McMorris-Rodgers et al.'' refers to a 
joint comment from the following members of the U.S. House of 
Representatives: Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (WA), Jeff Duncan (SC), 
Debbie Lesko (AZ), Bruce Westerman (AR), Jason Smith (MO), Rick 
Allen (GA), Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter (GA), John Joyce (PA), Dan 
Newhouse (WA), Troy Balderson (OH), Greg Pence (IN), Gregory F. 
Murphy (NC), Robert E. Latta (OH), Jefferson Van Drew (NJ), Randy 
Weber (TX), Larry Bucshon (IN), Elise M. Stefanik (NY), John Curtis 
(UT), Russ Fulcher (ID), Claudia Tenney (NY), Lauren Boebert (CO), 
Diana Harshbarger (TN), Andy Biggs (AZ), Troy Nehls (TX), Ronny L. 
Jackson (TX), Bill Johnson (OH), Austin Scott (GA), Alex X. Mooney 
(WV), Mike Ezell (MS), Adrian Smith (NE), Randy Feenstra (IA), Andy 
Ogles (TN), Mike Kelly (PA), Dan Crenshaw (TX), Robert J. Wittman 
(VA), Glenn Grothman (WI), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA), Harriet M. 
Hageman (NY), Kat Cammack (FL), Ann Wagner (MO), William R. Timmons 
(SC), Tracey Mann (KS), Michael Burgess (TX), Mary E. Miller (IL), 
Tim Walberg (MI), Jay Obernolte (CA), Michael V. Lawler (NY), Gus M. 
Bilirakis (FL), Glenn ``GT'' Thompson (PA), Richard Hudson (NC), 
Nick Langworthy (NY), Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford (AR), Daniel Webster 
(FL), Rich McCormick (GA), Bill Posey (FL), Michael Guest (MS), 
Darrell Issa (CA), Tom Tiffany (WI), Roger Williams (TX), Russell 
Fry (SC), Warren Davidson (OH), Brad Finstad (MN), Ryan Zinke (MT), 
Chip Roy (TX), Eric Burlison (MO), Gary Palmer (AL), Blaine 
Luetkemeyer (MO), Michael Bost (IL), Pete Stauber (MN), David G. 
Valadao (CA), Scott Perry (PA), Lori Chavez-Deremer (OR), and Ralph 
Norman (SC). Duplicate names have been removed from the list of 
signatories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NMHC and NAA recommended that DOE consider whether the electric 
grid is prepared for any anticipated increase in electrification needs 
as a result of a marketplace shift from gas cooking products to 
electric cooking products in response to the possible diminished 
availability of gas cooking products. (NMHC and NAA, No. 2265 at pp. 3-
4)
    NPGA asserted that DOE's analysis of payback and net cost 
percentage failed to account for the costs to consumers that will need 
to switch from gas to electric products as a result of a standard that 
eliminates products from the gas cooking market. (NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 
7)
    Senators Marshall et al.\91\ commented that the February 2023 SNOPR 
fails to account for fuel switching as a result of the proposed 
standards, which will likely compel consumers to switch fuels in order 
to purchase products that comply with the proposed standards. (Senators 
Marshall et al., No. 2277 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ ``Senators Marshall et al.'' refers to a joint comment from 
the following U.S. Senators: Roger Marshall (KS), Steve Daines (MT), 
John Barrasso (WY), Roger F. Wicker (MS), Todd Young (IN), Joni K. 
Ernst (IA), James E. Risch (ID), Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS), Markwayne 
Mullin (OK), John Hoeven (ND), James Lankford (OK), Ted Cruz (TX), 
and Bill Cassidy (LA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AGA commented that the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 
would remove many popular features in gas cooking tops, such as HIR 
burners and cast-iron grates. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 41-43) AGA 
commented that such changes in features would impact consumer demand 
and customers may switch away from gas cooking tops at potentially 
great economic expense because of insufficient gas options available to 
fit their current needs. (Id.) AGA added that additional expenses to 
electrify a natural gas kitchen, potentially thousands of dollars, were 
not included in DOE's analysis; DOE only accounted for the cost to 
replace or hook up a new cooking top.
    APGA commented that the lack of utility arising from the standard 
proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR, coupled with IRA rebates to 
incentivize individuals to purchase electric cooking products, could 
result in less gas cooking products being shipped in the future, which 
would further decrease the benefits of the proposed rule. (APGA, No. 
2283 at p. 6)
    Whirlpool commented that the market elimination of gas cooking 
products threatens to cause a substantial problem for consumers who are 
encouraged to switch from gas to electric cooking products without 
financial relief from the potentially higher operating costs from using 
electricity as the fuel source. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at p. 5) 
Consumers' Research also commented that a standard that prompts 
consumers to switch from gas cooking tops to electric cooking products 
would lead to higher consumer operating costs due to a higher cost for 
electricity relative to gas. (Consumers' Research, No. 2267 at p. 3)
    ONE Gas commented that DOE does not adequately account for the cost 
impact to consumers of fuel switching and inadequately addresses 
statutory prohibitions for setting minimum efficiency standards that 
would lead to fuel switching. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 11-15; ONE Gas, 
No. 10109 at p. 4) ONE Gas commented that most gas cooking top products 
will need redesign to meet standards set at EL 2, and the added cost 
passed on to consumers for gas cooking top products will compel further 
fuel switching by consumers. (Id.) ONE Gas stated this would be 
particularly impactful to low-income consumers that cannot afford the 
cost to transition to an electric cooking product. (Id.) ONE Gas 
commented that fuel switching and elimination of consumer choice is 
anticompetitive and contrary to EPCA. (Id.) ONE Gas further commented 
that DOE's logic in not conducting a fuel switching analysis is flawed 
and represents a departure from previous analyses of gas cooking 
products. (Id.) ONE Gas commented that DOE should conduct a fuel 
switching analysis for all standards levels to meet EPCA's need to 
minimize fuel switching. (Id.)
    In response to the August 2023 NODA, ONE Gas commented that the 
elimination of gas cooking top models as a result of the IAEC levels 
analyzed in the August 2023 NODA would likely lead to fuel switching as 
the only means of product availability to price-sensitive consumers. 
(ONE Gas, No. 10109 at p. 4) ONE Gas noted that fuel switching programs 
are prohibited and restricted in several territories. (Id.) ONE Gas 
commented that DOE should issue an SNOPR that incorporates the updated 
efficiency levels from the NODA and that it requests the ability to 
provide analysis of fuel switching and other impacts to consumers. 
(Id.)
    In this direct final rule, DOE is adopting TSL 1, the Recommended 
TSL

[[Page 11485]]

described in the Joint Agreement. For gas cooking products, TSL 1 
corresponds to EL 1. DOE estimates that 97 percent of the gas cooking 
top market currently meets or exceeds the efficiency of EL 1, ensuring 
that consumers will have access to gas cooking tops with the full range 
of product features in the first year of compliance. Furthermore, DOE 
notes that the incremental cost increase for EL 1 relative to the 
baseline is $4.04 (calculated in 2028, the first year of compliance), 
which is less than 1 percent of the installed cost of a baseline gas 
cooking top and far too small to incentivize switching to an electric 
cooking top. For these reasons, DOE is assuming in this direct final 
rule analysis that consumers will not switch fuel types as a result of 
the standard and, as such, has not included fuel switching in this 
direct final rule analysis.
    Whirlpool stated that, according to a survey it conducted in 2013, 
most consumers prefer to replace their current cooking top with one 
that uses the same fuel source, and they may not be willing to trade 
their gas cooking appliance for one that does not meet their needs or 
preferences. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at pp. 6, 9) Whirlpool commented that 
this could disrupt the normal appliance replacement cycle and cause 
consumers to delay purchases as long as possible, which will result in 
the reduction of the standard's potential efficiency savings. (Id.)
    DOE agrees that consumers are most likely to replace their current 
cooking top with one that uses the same fuel. The adopted standard for 
gas cooking tops, the Recommended TSL described in the Joint Agreement, 
is expected to preserve the features identified by manufacturers and 
individual commenters as important to consumers, as demonstrated by 
products from multiple manufacturers in the expanded test sample, and 
will not disrupt the consumer appliance replacement cycle.
    CEI et al.\92\ commented that many consumer and environmental 
organizations are enthusiastic about the promise of induction cooking 
tops, a potentially more energy-efficient type of electric cooking top 
they claim offers numerous advantages for consumers, but such products 
would gain market share with or without the proposed rule, casting 
further doubt as to the significance of any marginal energy savings 
from agency action. (CEI et al., No. 2287 at pp. 5-6) CEI et al. 
commented that the emergence of induction cooking tops further 
militates against a finding of significant energy savings as required 
under EPCA. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ ``CEI et al.'' refers to a joint comment from Competitive 
Enterprise Institute, Project 21, Caesar Rodney Institute, Center of 
the American Experiment, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Thomas 
Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, Committee For A Constructive 
Tomorrow, Roughrider Policy Center, Heartland Institute, Eagle 
Forum, Rio Grande Foundation, Cornwall Alliance, Conservative 
Caucus, Science and Environmental Policy Project, 60 Plus 
Association, Energy & Environment Legal Institute, Consumers' 
Research, Institute for Energy Research, FreedomWorks, Independent 
Women's Forum, John Locke Foundation, America First Policy 
Institute, Leadership Institute, Center for Urban Renewal and 
Education, Association of Mature American Citizens Action, Free 
Enterprise Project, Americans for Prosperity, Conservative 
Partnership Institute, American Constitutional Rights Union Action, 
Becky Norton Dunlop, Faith Wins, and The Heritage Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE agrees that the market share for induction products is likely 
to grow over the shipments analysis period. However, DOE's expanded 
test sample indicates that radiant electric smooth element cooking tops 
span much of the same range of efficiencies as induction electric 
smooth element cooking tops (see testing results in chapter 5 of this 
direct final rule TSD). As such, an energy-efficiency standard will 
reduce energy consumption across both product technologies.
    DOE considered the impact of standards on product shipments. DOE 
concluded that it is unlikely that the price increase due to the 
proposed standards would impact the decision to install a cooking 
product in the new construction market. In the replacement market, DOE 
assumed that, in response to an increased product price, some consumers 
will choose to repair their old cooking product and extend its lifetime 
instead of replacing it immediately. DOE estimated the magnitude of 
such impact through a purchase price elasticity of demand. The 
estimated price elasticity of -0.367 is based on data for cooking 
products as described in appendix 9A of the TSD for this direct final 
rule. This elasticity relates the repair or replace decision to the 
incremental installed cost of higher efficiency cooking products. DOE 
estimated that the average extension of life of the repaired unit would 
be 5 years, and then that unit will be replaced with a new cooking 
product.
    In response to the August 2023 NODA, AHAM commented that DOE's 
price elasticity estimate used in consumers' repair-replace decisions 
is an aggregate value that averages over the impact to consumer 
subgroups. (AHAM, No. 10116 at p. 29) AHAM requested DOE identify the 
consumer subgroups impacted by a higher price associated with a 
standard. (Id.)
    DOE is unaware of a source that provides the necessary data 
disaggregated by household income needed to reliably estimate price 
elasticity by household income level and commenters did not provide 
such data. Available data is only available at the national level 
allowing DOE to estimate the aggregate impact to product shipments (see 
appendix 9A of the direct final rule TSD for details). DOE notes that 
the adopted standard at the Recommended TSL is expected to increase the 
average price of a cooking top in the first year of compliance (2028) 
by $4 and of an oven by $3, resulting in minimal impacts across all 
consumer subgroups.

H. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA assesses the national energy savings (``NES'') and the NPV 
from a national perspective of total consumer \93\ costs and savings 
that would be expected to result from new or amended standards at 
specific efficiency levels.\94\ DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the 
potential standard levels considered based on projections of annual 
product shipments, along with the annual energy consumption and total 
installed cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the 
present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, operating cost 
savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime 
of consumer conventional cooking products sold from 2027 through 2056 
for TSLs other than TSL 1 and 2028 through 2057 for TSL 1 (the 
Recommended TSL detailed in the Joint Agreement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ ``Consumer'' in this context refers to consumers of the 
product being regulated.
    \94\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 States and U.S. 
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing 
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each 
product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation 
standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in 
efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of 
efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with 
projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE 
adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels 
(i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) for that class. For the standards 
cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the 
market shares of products with efficiencies greater than the standard.

[[Page 11486]]

    DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and 
the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested 
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities 
within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values 
(as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
    Table IV.30 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA 
analysis for the direct final rule. Discussion of these inputs and 
methods follows the table. See chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD 
for further details.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.037

1. Product Efficiency Trends
    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency 
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards 
cases. Section IV.F.8 of this document describes how DOE developed an 
energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which 
yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the 
considered product classes for the year of anticipated compliance with 
a new or amended standard. DOE assumed a static efficiency distribution 
over the shipments analysis period.
    For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to 
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards 
are assumed to become effective. In this scenario, the market shares of 
products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the standard 
under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard level, 
and the market share of products above the standard would remain 
unchanged.
2. National Energy Savings
    The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of 
national energy consumption of the considered products between each 
potential standards case (``TSL'') and the case with no new or amended 
energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy 
consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product 
(by vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). 
DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy 
consumption for the no-new-standards case and for each higher 
efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings 
based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and 
savings to primary energy (i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to 
generate site electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from 
AEO2023. For natural gas, primary energy is the same as site energy. 
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the 
timeframe of the analysis.
    Use of higher-efficiency products is sometimes associated with a 
direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of 
the product due to the increase in efficiency. DOE did not find any 
data on the rebound effect specific to consumer conventional cooking 
products and assumed there would be no rebound due to a standard.
    In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on 
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy 
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, 
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and 
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and 
emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards 
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 
approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011, notice, DOE published a 
statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination 
that EIA's National Energy Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most 
appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for 
that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, 
multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \95\ 
that EIA uses to prepare its

[[Page 11487]]

Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors incorporate losses in production 
and delivery in the case of natural gas (including fugitive emissions) 
and additional energy used to produce and deliver the various fuels 
used by power plants. The approach used for deriving FFC measures of 
energy use and emissions is described in appendix 10B of the direct 
final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy 
Modeling System: An Overview 2023, DOE/EIA-0581(2023), May 2023. 
Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/overview/pdf/0581(2023).pdf (last accessed Aug. 3, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CO2 Coalition requested additional detailed 
information regarding DOE's FFC measures. (CO2 Coalition, 
No. 2275 at pp. 6-7) The CO2 Coalition additionally asserted 
that it could not find an explanation as to why DOE used FFC 
measurement when EPCA states that appliance energy conservation 
standards should be measured using ``the quantity of energy directly 
consumed by a consumer product at point of use.'' (Id.)
    The definition cited by the CO2 Coalition refers to the 
energy use of a covered product, determined in accordance with test 
procedures. In a statement of policy published on August 18, 2011, DOE 
announced its intention to use FFC measures in its analysis, and DOE 
noted that it will continue to set energy conservation standards for 
covered products based on energy consumption at the point-of-use, as 
required by EPCA, as amended. 76 FR 51284. EPCA requires DOE, in 
determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the 
total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly 
from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) EPCA states that 
the term ``energy'' means electricity, or fossil fuels. DOE maintains 
that proper consideration of total energy savings should include the 
full fuel cycle.
    Fall commented that the evolving share of renewables in electricity 
generation should be accounted for in the analysis, based on the EIA's 
AEO2022. (Fall, No. 376 at pp. 1-3)
    For this direct final rule, DOE utilized EIA's AEO2023, which 
incorporates an increasing share of renewables in electricity 
generation, to derive FFC factors. See appendix 10B of the direct final 
rule TSD for details.
    NPGA supported DOE's decision to use FFC to provide a comprehensive 
analysis of national energy savings. (NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 6)
    Multiple commenters stated that the standards proposed in the 
February 2023 SNOPR would lead to increased overall full-fuel-cycle 
energy consumption due to consumers that will have to switch from gas 
to electric products. Spire commented that the proposed standards will 
promote fuel switching to electric appliances due the elimination of 
features and performance characteristics that cause many consumers to 
prefer gas, and added that any such proposed standards are in 
contradiction to EPCA. (Spire, No. 2710 at pp. 26-30) Spire commented 
that fuel switching would result in greater overall energy consumption 
and carbon emissions when accounting for the FFC energy associated with 
electric appliances relative to gas appliances. (Id.) NPGA commented 
that the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR will result in 
the replacement of gas cooking products with electric cooking products 
that consume more energy when including the energy required to generate 
and transmit the site electricity. (NPGA, No. 2270 at pp. 4-5) AGA 
commented that the result of DOE's proposed standards will be an 
increase in source energy usage due to AGA's assessment that the 
elimination of certain cooking tops from the market will likely result 
in the gas appliances being replaced with electric resistance 
appliances. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 45-46)
    As described in section IV.G of this document, DOE maintains that 
consumers will not switch fuels as a result of the adopted standard.
    ONE Gas commented that DOE has placed improper emphasis upon site 
energy consumption calculations as the basis for consumer and national 
energy savings. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 7-8) ONE Gas commented that, 
as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 
(``NAS'') concluded in 2009, using the FFC metric would provide the 
public with more comprehensive information about the impacts of energy 
consumption on the environment, the economy, and other national 
concerns while noting that DOE used site energy consumption analysis 
that reflects the energy used in generating and distributing 
electricity, natural gas, or oil in addition to the energy used by the 
appliance at the site. (Id.) ONE Gas commented that 14 years after NAS 
recommended that DOE move to the FFC measure of energy consumption for 
assessment of national and environmental impacts, especially levels of 
GHGs, DOE still has not fully implemented FFC. (Id.) ONE Gas 
acknowledged that DOE accounts for FFC energy savings for entire TSLs 
and energy and emissions associated with the TSL level of aggregation, 
but it does not do so for design options independently or across 
consumer fuel types. (Id.) ONE Gas commented that the incomplete use of 
FFC savings as a metric leads to biased analysis and interpretation of 
proposed minimum efficiency standards for conventional consumer cooking 
appliances. (Id.)
    DOE's use of the FFC metric is consistent with the NAS 
recommendations and EPCA requirements. Using site energy rather than 
FFC measures for design options and consumer energy use is appropriate 
because it serves the purpose of allowing estimation of the economic 
impacts of potential standards on consumers in the LCC and PBP 
analysis. The FFC metric is appropriate at the level of the national 
impact analysis where the purpose is to estimate the total energy 
savings and environmental impacts from potential standards.
3. Net Present Value Analysis
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total 
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), 
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and 
savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between 
the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total 
savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. 
DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product 
shipped during the projection period.
    As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this document, DOE developed 
price trends for consumer conventional cooking products based on a 
power-law fit of historical PPI data and cumulative shipments. For the 
electric cooking products price trend, DOE used the ``Electric 
household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and equipment'' PPI for 
1967-2022.\96\ For the gas cooking product price trend, DOE used the 
``Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and equipment'' 
for 1981-2022.\97\ DOE applied the same trends to project prices for 
each product class at each considered efficiency level. By 2057, which 
is the end date of the projection period for the Recommended TSL 
detailed in the Joint Agreement, the average product price is projected 
to drop 16 percent relative to 2028 for electric cooking products, and 
20 percent for gas cooking products. DOE's projection of product prices 
is described in chapter 8 of the TSD for this direct final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Electric household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and 
equipment PPI series ID: PCU33522033522011; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
    \97\ Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units, and 
equipment PPI series ID; PCU33522033522013; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend 
estimates, DOE

[[Page 11488]]

investigated the impact of different product price projections on the 
consumer NPV for the considered TSLs for consumer conventional cooking 
products. In addition to the default price trend, DOE considered two 
product price sensitivity cases: (1) a high price decline case based on 
a learning rate derived from subset of PPI data for the period 1993-
2022 for electric cooking products and the period 1981-2004 for gas 
cooking products and (2) a low price decline case based on a learning 
rate derived from a subset of PPI data from the period of 1967-1992 for 
electric cooking products and the period 2005-2022 for gas cooking 
products. The derivation of these price trends and the results of these 
sensitivity cases are described in appendix 10C of the TSD for this 
direct final rule.
    The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are 
calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the 
projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy 
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy 
prices by the projection of annual national-average residential energy 
price changes in the Reference case from AEO2023, which has an end year 
of 2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, the 2046-2050 average was 
used for all years. As part of the NIA, DOE also analyzed scenarios 
that used inputs from variants of the AEO2023 Reference case that have 
lower and higher economic growth. Those cases have lower and higher 
energy price trends compared to the Reference case. NIA results based 
on these cases are presented in appendix 10C of the direct final rule 
TSD.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this 
direct final rule, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using 
both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these 
discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of 
Management and Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development 
of regulatory analysis.\98\ The discount rates for the determination of 
NPV are in contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, 
which are designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. The 7-percent 
real value is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to 
private capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value 
represents the ``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at 
which society discounts future consumption flows to their present 
value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars (last accessed January 4, 2024). 
DOE used the prior version of Circular A-4 (September 17, 2003) in 
accordance with the effective date of the November 9, 2023, version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy 
conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on 
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately 
affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a 
subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such 
disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups 
of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular 
consumers from alternative standard levels. For this direct final rule, 
DOE analyzed the impacts of the considered standard levels on two 
subgroups: (1) low-income households and (2) senior-only households.
    For low-income households, the analysis used a subset of the RECS 
2020 sample composed of low-income households. DOE separately analyzed 
different groups in the low-income household sample using data from 
RECS on home ownership status and on who pays the energy bill. Low-
income homeowners are analyzed equivalently to how they are analyzed in 
the standard LCC analysis. Low-income renters who do not pay their 
energy bill are assumed to not be impacted by any new or amended 
standards. In this case, the landlord purchases the appliance and pays 
its operating costs, so is effectively the consumer and the renter is 
not impacted. Low-income renters who do pay their energy bill are 
assumed to incur no first cost. DOE made this assumption to acknowledge 
that the vast majority of low-income renters will not pay to have their 
conventional cooking product replaced--such replacement would be up to 
the landlord.
    Whirlpool commented that the standards proposed in the February 
2023 SNOPR will disproportionately affect low-income consumers and 
elderly individuals living on a fixed income. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at 
p. 5)
    In response to the August 2023 NODA, AHAM commented that DOE has 
not performed a distributional analysis that accounts for the burdens 
to low-income households for whom increased prices may result in 
cumulative financial burden. (AHAM, No. 10116 at pp. 25-26) AHAM stated 
that DOE's analyses fail to account for the economic impacts to 
subgroups that may be disproportionately impacted by regulations due to 
increased first costs. (Id.) AHAM further commented that DOE has not 
modeled consumer choice to discern how proposed standards would 
influence consumer decisions to retain older, less energy efficient 
appliances. (Id.) In particular, AHAM stated that low-income consumers 
are not in a financial condition that might prepare them to invest in 
higher price durable goods, particularly if energy savings are slight 
and may not be achieved for many years. (Id.)
    As noted above, many low-income consumers are renters who are not 
expected to pay the incremental cost due to an amended standard. For 
low-income homeowners who are expected to bear that incremental cost, 
the analysis incorporates the higher incremental costs at each 
considered TSL. In the aggregate, DOE finds that low-income consumers 
have higher average LCC savings and lower payback periods relative to 
the general population. At the adopted TSL in this direct final rule, 
the average increase in incremental first cost relative to the baseline 
level the low-income consumers (including both renters and home-owners) 
is $2 for cooking tops and $1 for ovens, which is unlikely to influence 
consumers' decisions to repair or retain older, less efficient units. 
Additionally, DOE finds that the consumer impacts to senior-only 
households are similar to the national population with positive LCC 
savings and a less than 1 percent of senior-only households experience 
a net cost at the adopted TSL. DOE presents the results of low-income 
and senior-only subgroup analyses in section V.B.1.b of this document.
    AHAM commented that DOE has done nothing to determine to what 
degree split-incentive situations (landlord purchases efficient 
appliance while tenant pays the utility bill) occur or analyzed fully 
the effects of tighter standards on other potential landlord behavior, 
such as continuing to repair old appliances or resorting to used 
appliances. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 48-49)
    The existence of a split incentive across a substantial number of 
U.S. households, in which a tenant pays for the cost of electricity 
while the building owner furnishes appliances, has been identified 
through a number of studies of residential appliance and equipment use 
broadly. Building from early work

[[Page 11489]]

including Jaffe and Stavins \99\ and Murtishaw and Sathaye \100\ 
discussed the presence of landlord-tenant split incentives (i.e., the 
``principal-agent problem''). Spurlock and Fujita \101\ showed that 87 
percent of low-income individuals who rented their homes were found to 
pay the electricity bill resulting from their energy use, such that 
they were likely subject to a scenario in which their landlord 
purchased the appliance, but they paid the operating costs. DOE notes 
that there continues to be a lack of data to corroborate the notion 
that landlords pass on some, or all, of increased appliance costs to 
tenants. Additionally, DOE notes that the shipment-weighted average 
incremental first cost increase to landlords at the adopted standard 
relative to the baseline level is $3 and unlikely to impact landlord 
behavior. DOE has continued to analyze low-income renters under the 
assumption that they pay no upfront costs under an amended standard in 
this direct final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ B. Jaffe and R.N. Stavins (1994) The energy-efficiency gap 
What does it mean? Energy Policy, 22 (10) 804-810, 10.1016/0301-
4215(94)90138-4.
    \100\ Murtishaw, S., & Sathaye, J. (2006). Quantifying the 
Effect of the Principal-Agent Problem on US Residential Energy Use. 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6f14t11t.
    \101\ C.A. Spurlock and K.S. Fujita (2022) Equity implications 
of market structure and appliance energy efficiency regulation, 
Energy Policy, 165(112943), doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM commented that DOE should assess distributional consumer 
impacts thoroughly prior to promulgation of energy standards to 
minimize harm to subpopulations. (AHAM, No. 10116 at pp. 26-29) AHAM 
asserted that previous research shows disparate impacts based on 
household income and ability to pay for appliance upgrades required by 
regulatory requirements. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE standards should 
be assessed for regressive impacts on low- and middle-income 
households. (Id.)
    DOE's low-income LCC subgroup analysis uses inputs specific to low-
income consumers to estimate the impact of adopted standards. 
Additionally, DOE notes that there is evidence that prior efficiency 
standards, by acting on a market substantially more complex than the 
simplified model of perfect competition, have aligned with improvements 
in efficiency (and in some cases additional product attributes) while 
maintaining a constant price for baseline products. For example, 
Spurlock and Fujita (2022) examined appliance point of sales data and 
noted that the 2004 and 2007 clothes washer efficiency standards were 
associated with 30-percent increase in product efficiency 
contemporaneous with no change in average price within the baseline 
market segment.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 11 in the direct final rule TSD describes the consumer 
subgroup analysis.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of new and 
amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of consumer 
conventional cooking products and to estimate the potential impacts of 
such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has 
both quantitative and qualitative aspects and includes analyses of 
projected industry cash flows, the INPV, investments in research and 
development (``R&D'') and manufacturing capital, and domestic 
manufacturing employment. Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how 
new and amended energy conservation standards might affect 
manufacturing employment, capacity, and competition, as well as how 
standards contribute to overall regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA 
serves to identify any disproportionate impacts on manufacturer 
subgroups, including small business manufacturers.
    The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the GRIM, an 
industry cash flow model with inputs specific to this rulemaking. The 
key GRIM inputs include data on the industry cost structure, unit 
production costs, product shipments, manufacturer markups, and 
investments in R&D and manufacturing capital required to produce 
compliant products. The key GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is the sum 
of industry annual cash flows over the analysis period, discounted 
using the industry-weighted average cost of capital, and the impact to 
domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses standard accounting 
principles to estimate the impacts of more-stringent energy 
conservation standards on a given industry by comparing changes in INPV 
and domestic manufacturing employment between a no-new-standards case 
and the various standards cases (i.e., TSLs). To capture the 
uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing strategies following new 
and amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible impacts 
under different manufacturer markup scenarios.
    The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer 
characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such 
factors as a potential standard's impact on manufacturing capacity, 
competition within the industry, the cumulative impact of other DOE and 
non-DOE regulations, and impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The 
complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
    DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 
1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the consumer conventional 
cooking products manufacturing industry based on the market and 
technology assessment, preliminary manufacturer interviews, and 
publicly available information. This included a top-down analysis of 
consumer conventional cooking products manufacturers that DOE used to 
derive preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g., revenues; 
materials, labor, overhead, and depreciation expenses; selling, 
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''); and R&D expenses). DOE 
also used public sources of information to further calibrate its 
initial characterization of the consumer conventional cooking products 
manufacturing industry, including company filings of form 10-K from the 
SEC,\103\ corporate annual reports, the U.S. Census Bureau's ``Economic 
Census,'' \104\ and reports from D&B Hoovers.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Available at www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.
    \104\ Available at www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/data/tables.html.
    \105\ Available at app.avention.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash flow 
analysis to quantify the potential impacts of new and amended energy 
conservation standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a 
series of annual cash flows starting with the announcement of standards 
and extending over a 30-year period following the compliance date of 
standards. These factors include annual expected revenues, costs of 
sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures. In 
general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash 
flow in three distinct ways: (1) creating a need for increased 
investment, (2) raising production costs per unit, and (3) altering 
revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes.
    In addition, during Phase 2, DOE developed interview guides to 
distribute to manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products 
in order to develop other key GRIM inputs,

[[Page 11490]]

including product and capital conversion costs, and to gather 
additional information on the anticipated effects of energy 
conservation standards on revenues, direct employment, capital assets, 
industry competitiveness, and subgroup impacts.
    In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE conducted structured, detailed 
interviews with representative manufacturers. During these interviews, 
DOE discussed engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial 
topics to validate assumptions used in the GRIM and to identify key 
issues or concerns. As part of Phase 3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of 
manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by new and 
amended standards or that may not be accurately represented by the 
average cost assumptions used to develop the industry cash flow 
analysis. Such manufacturer subgroups may include small business 
manufacturers, low-volume manufacturers, niche players, and/or 
manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that largely differs from the 
industry average. DOE identified two manufacturer subgroups for a 
separate impact analysis: premium product manufacturers and small 
businesses. The premium product manufacturer subgroup is discussed in 
section V.B.2.d of this document. The small business subgroup is 
discussed in section chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to new 
or amended standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. 
The GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash flow analysis that 
incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry 
financial information as inputs. The GRIM models changes in costs, 
distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins that 
could result from a new and amended energy conservation standard. The 
GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash 
flows, beginning in 2024 (the base year of the analysis) and continuing 
30 years after the analyzed compliance year.\106\ DOE calculated INPVs 
by summing the stream of annual discounted cash flows during this 
period. For manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products, 
DOE used a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, which was derived from 
industry financials and then modified according to feedback received 
during manufacturer interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ For the no-new-standards case and all TSLs except the 
Recommended TSL, the analysis period ranges from 2024-2056. For the 
Recommended TSL, the analysis period ranges from 2024-2057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles 
and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each 
standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards 
case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the new 
and amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers. As discussed 
previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using a number of 
sources, including publicly available data, results of the engineering 
analysis, and information gathered from industry stakeholders during 
the course of manufacturer interviews. The GRIM results are presented 
in section V.B.2 of this document. Additional details about the GRIM, 
the discount rate, and other financial parameters can be found in 
chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    Manufacturing more efficient products is typically more expensive 
than manufacturing baseline products due to the use of more complex 
components, which are typically more costly than baseline components. 
The changes in the MPCs of covered products can affect the revenues, 
gross margins, and cash flow of the industry.
    In the MIA, DOE used the MPCs calculated in the engineering 
analysis as described in section IV.C of this document and further 
detailed in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD. For this direct 
final rule analysis, DOE used a design-option approach supported by 
testing and supplemented by reverse engineering (physical teardowns and 
testing of existing products in the market) to identify the incremental 
cost and efficiency improvement associated with each design option or 
design option combination. DOE used these updated MPCs from the 
engineering analysis in this MIA.
    For a complete description of the MPCs, see chapter 5 of the direct 
final rule TSD.
b. Shipments Projections
    The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit 
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by 
efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time 
can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the 
GRIM uses the NIA's annual shipment projections derived from the 
updated shipments analysis from the base year (2024) to the end of the 
analysis period (30 years after the analyzed compliance date).\107\ See 
chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD for additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    New and amended energy conservation standards could cause 
manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their production 
facilities and product designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level 
of conversion-related expenditures that would be needed to comply with 
each considered efficiency level in each product class. For the MIA, 
DOE classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) 
product conversion costs; and (2) capital conversion costs. Product 
conversion costs are investments in research, development, testing, 
marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product 
designs comply with new or amended energy conservation standards. 
Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and 
equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities 
such that new compliant product designs can be fabricated and 
assembled.
    To evaluate the level of product conversion costs manufacturers 
would likely incur to comply with new and amended energy conservation 
standards, DOE estimated the number of consumer conventional cooking 
product models currently on the market, the efficiency distribution of 
those models on the market, the estimated testing cost to test to the 
DOE test procedure (for cooking tops only), and the estimated per model 
R&D costs to redesign a non-compliant model into a compliant model for 
each analyzed efficiency level.
    DOE used the same number of consumer conventional cooking models 
that were identified in the February 2023 SNOPR for this direct final 
rule MIA. DOE used the efficiency distribution from the updated 
shipments analysis for this direct final rule MIA. DOE updated the per 
model testing cost and per model R&D cost based on updated wage data 
from the BLS.\108\ DOE revised the per model R&D costs for gas cooking 
tops to reflect the updated direct final rule engineering analysis. DOE 
then combined the per model testing and R&D costs with the number of 
models that would need to be tested and redesigned to estimate the

[[Page 11491]]

industry product conversion costs. Lastly, DOE updated all conversion 
cost estimates from 2021 dollars that were used in the February 2023 
SNOPR to 2022 dollars for this direct final rule analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ DOE updated the hourly wage from 2021 data used in the 
February 2023 SNOPR to 2022 data used in this direct final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whirlpool commented that the standards proposed in the February 
2023 SNOPR are not economically justified and that DOE must account for 
the costs that manufacturers will bear in developing and marketing 
products to meet these energy conservation standards. (Whirlpool, No. 
2284 at pp. 4-5) Whirlpool stated that it could not identify a single 
gas cooking top or range model in its product line that meets the gas 
cooking top standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. (Id.) 
Whirlpool stated that a significant time investment and an expensive 
product redesign would be required to bring gas cooking tops into 
compliance with the gas cooking top standard proposed in the February 
2023 SNOPR. (Id.) Whirlpool commented that DOE's projected conversion 
cost of $183.4 million in the February 2023 SNOPR reflects flaws in 
analysis. (Id.) Specifically, Whirlpool commented that DOE's 
approximation that half of all gas cooking top models currently on the 
market are compliant with the gas cooking top standard proposed in the 
February 2023 SNOPR contradict DOE's conclusion in the February 2023 
SNOPR TSD that only about 4 percent of gas cooking tops on the market 
meet or exceed the proposed standard of EL 2. (Id.) Thus, Whirlpool 
stated that DOE's February 2023 SNOPR analysis does not reflect the 
true cost to manufacturers of complying with the standards proposed in 
the February 2023 SNOPR. (Id.)
    Conversely, the CA IOUs stated that the MIA from the February 2023 
SNOPR accurately accounts for the significant investments manufacturers 
must make to comply with the standards proposed in the February 2023 
SNOPR. (CA IOUs, No. 2278 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that DOE 
appropriately balances the significant costs to manufacturers to retool 
and redesign products to meet the standard against the significant 
consumer benefits from the standard. (Id.) The CA IOUs stated that 
DOE's analysis shows manufacturers can make more efficient gas cooking 
tops at an incremental cost to consumers while saving consumers 
significant money over the lifetime of the cooking top. (Id.)
    As discussed in section IV.C.1.a of this document, DOE updated the 
efficiency levels for gas cooking tops for this direct final rule 
analysis. The conversion costs calculated for this direct final rule 
reflect these updated efficiency levels for the gas cooking top product 
class.
    In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur 
between the year of publication of the direct final rule and the year 
by which manufacturers must comply with the new and amended standards. 
The conversion cost figures used in the GRIM can be found in section 
V.B.2 of this document. For additional information on the estimated 
capital and product conversion costs, see chapter 12 of the direct 
final rule TSD.
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
    MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, 
materials, and overhead estimated in DOE's MPCs) and all non-production 
costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. To calculate 
the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied non-production cost markups to the 
MPCs estimated in the engineering analysis for each product class and 
efficiency level. Modifying these markups in the standards case yields 
different sets of impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled 
two standards-case markup scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding 
the potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers 
following the implementation of new and amended energy conservation 
standards: (1) a preservation of gross margin scenario; and (2) a 
preservation of operating profit scenario. These scenarios lead to 
different markup values that, when applied to the MPCs, result in 
varying revenue and cash flow impacts.
    Under the preservation of gross margin scenario, DOE applied the 
same ``gross margin percentage'' across all efficiency levels in the 
standards cases that is used in the no-new-standards case, which 
assumes that manufacturers would be able to maintain the same amount of 
profit as a percentage of revenues at all efficiency levels within a 
product class. DOE continued to use a manufacturer markup of 1.20 for 
all consumer conventional cooking products, which corresponds to a 17 
percent gross margin percentage and the same manufacturer markup that 
was used in the February 2023 SNOPR.\109\ This manufacturer markup 
scenario represents the upper bound to industry profitability under new 
and amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ 88 FR 6818, 6863.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, DOE modeled a 
situation in which manufacturers are not able to increase per-unit 
operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production 
costs. Under this scenario, as the MPCs increase, manufacturers reduce 
their margins (on a percentage basis) to a level that maintains the no-
new-standards case operating profit (in absolute dollars). The implicit 
assumption behind this scenario is that the industry can only maintain 
its operating profit in absolute dollars after compliance with new and 
amended standards. Therefore, operating profit in percentage terms is 
reduced between the no-new-standards case and the analyzed standards 
cases. DOE adjusted the margins in the GRIM at each TSL to yield 
approximately the same earnings before interest and taxes in the 
standards cases in the year after the compliance date of the new and 
amended standards as in the no-new-standards case.\110\ This scenario 
represents the lower bound to industry profitability under new and 
amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ For TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL), the modeled compliance 
date is 2028. For the remaining TSLs, the modeled compliance date is 
2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two markup 
scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a of this document.
3. Comments From Interested Parties
    For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received 
regarding its manufacturer impact analysis presented in the February 
2023 SNOPR. The approach used for this direct final rule is largely the 
same approach DOE had used for the February 2023 SNOPR analysis.
    Several interested parties commented on DOE's February 2023 SNOPR 
MIA. These comments were made either in writing during the comment 
period following the publication of the February 2023 SNOPR or during 
the consumer conventional cooking products public meeting for the 
February 2023 SNOPR.
    NPGA stated that in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE identified only 
one model of gas cooking top that meets the proposed standard for gas 
cooking tops. (NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 10) NPGA stated that this 
eliminates competition and creates an unfair, government-assisted 
advantage to the manufacturer of this particular model and risks that 
the market will be monopolized by a few select manufacturers. (Id.) AGA 
also stated that lessening of competition will have monopolistic 
consequences for those manufacturers who remain in business and drive-
up prices for consumers who will have only 4 percent of gas cooking 
tops remaining. (AGA,

[[Page 11492]]

No. 2279 at pp. 24-26) Additionally, Senators Marshall et al. stated 
that the February 2023 SNOPR proposed standards are anticompetitive and 
will likely lead to manufacturers leaving the market. (Marshall et al., 
No. 2277 at pp. 1-2)
    Consumers' Research noted that DOE's February 2023 SNOPR analysis 
does not include data to justify the claim that most of the gas cooking 
top models currently on the market are capable of being redesigned to 
meet the standard for gas cooking tops that was proposed in the 
February 2023 SNOPR. (Consumers' Research, No. 2267 at pp. 1-2) 
Consumers' Research commented that the largest share of DOE's estimated 
INPV costs from the February 2023 SNOPR would fall on gas cooking 
product manufacturers, as they produce the overwhelming majority of the 
models that will require redesign to meet the standards proposed in the 
February 2023 SNOPR. (Id.) Consumers' Research commented that due to 
increased costs concentrated on gas cooking product manufacturers, some 
manufacturers will likely have a negative cash flow if the standards 
proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR are adopted. (Id.) Consumers' 
Research stated that they believe the standard for gas cooking tops 
that was proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR will prompt companies to 
decrease product lines or leave the market altogether, thereby limiting 
consumer choice by decreasing market competition. (Id.)
    Conversely, the CA IOUs stated that cooking tops do not currently 
have minimum performance standards or efficiency labels and are not 
currently subject to a voluntary ENERGY STAR specification, nor are 
manufacturers incentivized to produce more efficient cooking tops or 
provide consumers with energy-efficiency information. (CA IOUs, No. 
2278 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that these market failures mean 
consumers have no ability to choose a more efficient cooking top 
because they lack both the available options and the information to do 
so. (Id.)
    Based on comments received in response to the February 2023 SNOPR, 
DOE further examined the potential impacts of the gas cooking top 
market in this direct final rule analysis and agrees that there would 
likely be a significant impact to the gas cooking top market if DOE 
adopted the standards for the gas cooking tops that were proposed in 
the February 2023 SNOPR. As discussed in section IV.C.1.a of this 
document, DOE updated the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops for 
this direct final rule analysis. Additionally, in section V.B.2.c of 
this document, DOE further discusses the manufacturing capacity 
concerns and potential market disruption, including the potential for 
manufacturers to leave the gas cooking top market, if DOE were to adopt 
energy conservation standards at max-tech for gas cooking tops.
    NMHC and NAA stated that overly prescriptive directives for 
marginal efficiency gains will outpace the ability of the manufacturing 
sector and installation providers to alleviate existing product 
shortages and delays while creating new barriers to cost-effective and 
timely appliance procurement. (NMHC and NAA, No. 2265 at p. 3) NMHC and 
NAA stated their interest in preserving product choice and ensuring the 
flexibility to select those appliances that reflect the unique 
characteristics and wide array of multifamily building types and their 
residents. (Id.)
    As previously stated in this section, DOE updated the efficiency 
levels for gas cooking tops for this direct final rule from the 
efficiency levels used in the February 2023 SNOPR. As discussed in 
section IV.C.1.a of this document, the updated efficiency levels for 
gas cooking tops allow gas cooking tops to retain the presence of 
multiple HIR burners; continuous cast-iron grates; the ability to 
choose between nominal unit widths; the ability to have sealed burners; 
at least one LIR burner (i.e., with an input rate below 6,500 Btu/h); 
the ability to have multiple dual-stacked and/or multi-ring HIR 
burners; and at least one extra-high input rate burner (i.e., with an 
input rate above 18,000 Btu/h) at EL 1, the adopted EL, thereby 
preserving consumer product choice for gas cooking tops. DOE discusses 
the potential impacts for manufacturing production capacity for gas 
cooking tops in section V.B.2.c of this document.

K. Emissions Analysis

    The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first 
component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation 
standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion 
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 
The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on 
emissions of two additional greenhouse gases, CH4 and 
N2O, as well as the reductions in emissions of other gases 
due to ``upstream'' activities in the fuel production chain. These 
upstream activities comprise extraction, processing, and transporting 
fuels to the site of combustion.
    The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO2, 
NOX, SO2, and Hg uses emissions intended to 
represent the marginal impacts of the change in electricity consumption 
associated with new or amended standards. The methodology is based on 
results published for the AEO, including a set of side cases that 
implement a variety of efficiency-related policies. The methodology is 
described in appendix 13A in the direct final rule TSD. The analysis 
presented in this notice uses projections from AEO2023. Power sector 
emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel combustion are 
estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories 
published by the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'').\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The on-site operation of consumer conventional cooking products 
involves combustion of fossil fuels and results in emissions of 
CO2, NOX, SO2, CH4, and 
N2O where these products are used. Site emissions of these 
gases were estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas 
Inventories and, for NOX and SO2, emissions 
intensity factors from an EPA publication.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. External Combustion 
Sources. In Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42. 
Fifth Edition. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Chapter 
1. Available at www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors#Proposed/ 
(last accessed July 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received several comments on the connection between gas stove 
efficiency and indoor air quality, and related health impacts.
    ANHE et al.\113\ commented that burned methane gas byproducts 
contribute to premature mortality and increase risk for a number of 
illnesses. (ANHE et al., No. 2276 at pp. 4-5) ANHE et al. further 
stated that a growing body of evidence shows an association between 
long-term exposure to air pollution and adverse birth outcomes, while 
short-term exposure to high levels of air pollution can exacerbate 
asthma and cardiopulmonary symptoms. (Id.) ANHE et al. commented that 
methane gas leaks pose risks to human health, stating that a recent 
study found consumer-grade natural gas contains at least 21 different 
hazardous air pollutants and that leaks can be

[[Page 11493]]

undetectable by smell. ANHE et al. stated that higher efficiency burner 
systems correlate with more complete combustion and more efficient 
energy conversion. ANHE et al. noted that gas cooking products are not 
required to be vented outside and that most cooking top hood 
ventilation systems recirculate the air with only a moderate impact on 
immediate air quality. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ ``ANHE et al.'' refers to a joint comment from Alliance of 
Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Lung Association, 
Association of Public Health Laboratories, Asthma and Allergy 
Foundation of America, Climate Psychiatry Alliance, Foundation for 
Sarcoidosis Research, Greater Boston Physicians for Social 
Responsibility, Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, 
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, National 
League for Nursing, National Medical Association, and Physicians for 
Social Responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ASAP et al. commented that the standards proposed in the February 
2023 SNOPR would improve indoor air quality because higher efficiency 
burner systems correlate with more complete combustion, which reduces 
in-home gas combustion and therefore reduces exposure to pollutants 
that harm human health. (ASAP et al., No. 2273 at pp. 3-4)
    Sierra Club and Earthjustice commented that DOE's analysis 
undervalues the health benefits of the standards proposed in the 
February 2023 SNOPR, citing studies that connect children with asthma 
to homes with gas cooking products as well as homes with high 
concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (``NO2''). (Sierra Club 
and Earthjustice, No. 2282 at pp. 3-4) Sierra Club and Earthjustice 
commented that improving the energy efficiency of gas cooking tops 
would ensure that compliant models combust less gas to do the same 
amount of cooking. (Id.) Sierra Club and Earthjustice recommended that 
DOE pursue an accurate quantitative assessment of the economic value of 
the harms resulting from gas cooking top emissions, or, at minimum, 
acknowledge that its current dollar-per-ton estimates may significantly 
under-value the health and welfare benefits associated with reducing 
these emissions. (Id.)
    The AGs of NY et al.\114\ commented that the standards proposed in 
the February 2023 SNOPR would provide potentially significant--but as-
yet unquantified--public health benefits such as those associated with 
improved indoor air quality, as the operation of gas cooking products 
results in emissions of methane, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, 
nitrogen dioxide, and other air pollutants in the home that may be 
associated with a variety of serious respiratory and cardiovascular 
conditions and other health risks, according to studies cited by DOE. 
(AGs of NY et al., No. 2286 at p. 3) The AGs of NY et al. commented 
that they share DOE's concerns regarding gas cooking products' 
potential negative health impacts and pointed to recent studies showing 
that children growing up in households with gas cooking products have a 
42-percent increased risk of experiencing asthma symptoms, and nearly 
13 percent of current childhood asthma cases nationwide can be 
attributed to gas cooking product usage. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ ``The AGs of NY et al.'' refers to a joint comment from 
the attorneys general of the States of New York, California, 
Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, 
and Washington, the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, 
and the District of Columbia; and the Corporation Counsel for the 
City of New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AGs of NY et al. support DOE's efforts to quantify whether the 
proposed efficiency standards will reduce emissions indoors caused by 
leakage from gas cooking products, citing a 2022 study by Stanford 
University researchers that found a significant quantity of emissions 
from gas ranges occurs due to leakage when they are not actively being 
used. (Id. at pp. 3-4) The AGs of NY et al. commented that improved air 
quality is especially important to low-income and minority communities, 
which often experience energy insecurity and disproportionately suffer 
from asthma and other negative health outcomes associated with indoor 
air pollution from gas cooking products. (Id.) The AGs of NY et al. 
stated that making cooking appliances more efficient and reducing 
cooking-related emissions that exacerbate or contribute to asthma will 
help reduce the economic and health burdens of historically underserved 
communities. (Id.)
    The AGs of NY et al. encouraged DOE to incorporate performance 
standards into a final rule that mandate design approaches, control 
strategies, or other measures to mitigate methane or other emissions 
from gas ranges due to incomplete combustion and leakage design 
improvements, should such approaches and strategies exist and if they 
are economically feasible. (Id. at p. 4) The AGs of NY et al. further 
commented that two benefits of more efficient cooking appliances--lower 
utility bills and improved air quality--are especially important to 
low-income and minority communities, which often experience energy 
insecurity and disproportionately suffer from asthma and other negative 
health outcomes associated with indoor air pollution from gas cooking 
products. (Id. at pp. 4-5) The AGs of NY et al. commented that, for 
example, children living in Wards 7 and 8 of the District of Columbia 
(neighborhoods afflicted with poor housing conditions, including 
inadequate ventilation) have higher asthma rates and higher asthma 
hospitalization rates than children living in the wealthier parts of 
DC. (Id.) The AGs of NY et al. also cited a recent New York Public 
Housing Authority study, which found that cooking with gas cooking 
products resulted in NO2 concentrations nearly double the 
levels in outdoor air that EPA considers unhealthy for sensitive 
groups. (Id.) The AGs of NY et al. commented that making cooking 
appliances more efficient and reducing cooking-related emissions that 
exacerbate or contribute to asthma will help reduce the economic and 
health burdens of historically underserved communities. (Id.)
    In response to the August 2023 NODA, WE ACT provided a study 
detailing the impact on indoor air quality from transitioning from gas 
to induction stoves in affordable housing in New York City. (WE ACT, 
No. 10114 at p. 1) WE ACT commented that DOE should consider health 
impacts that the energy conservation standards can address. (Id.) WE 
ACT further commented that gas cooking products carry a significant 
health risk due to the combustion-related pollutants, like nitrogen 
dioxide (NO2), benzene, methane, and carbon monoxide. (Id. 
at pp. 2-3) WE ACT further commented that combustion-related pollutants 
pose a disproportionate health risk to vulnerable populations. (Id.)
    WE ACT commented that methane used in gas cooking products is an 
even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and notes that gas 
cooking products have been reported to leak methane even when not in 
use. (Id. at pp. 2-3) WE ACT note that methane leakage from gas cooking 
products when not in use poses a safety concern, as well as being 
disruptive to the climate. (Id.)
    AGA commented that DOE relied on a limited and biased selection of 
literature to make a presumption that gas cooking applications 
contribute to negative health impacts. AGA commented that DOE's 
assertions that reducing in-home use of gas combustion may deliver 
health benefits are not quantified in the February 2023 SNOPR analysis 
and such assertions are outside the scope of this proceeding and not 
supported by the record. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 47-50) AGA cited studies 
that DOE ignored showing no evidence of an association between the use 
of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma 
diagnoses. (Id.) AGA commented that the Federal Interagency Committee 
on Indoor Air Quality, which includes two dozen Federal agencies led by 
EPA, has not identified natural gas cooking emissions as an important 
issue concerning asthma or respiratory illness. (Id.) AGA added that 
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and EPA do not

[[Page 11494]]

present gas ranges as a significant contributor to adverse air quality 
or health hazard in their technical or public information literature, 
guidance, or requirements. (Id.) AGA commented that indoor air quality 
is far less dependent on the heat source for the cooking, either 
natural gas or electricity, than on the types of food being cooked and 
the cooking conditions such as time, temperature, space configuration, 
and ventilation. AGA commented that if health impacts were in scope, 
DOE would need to conduct a full analysis of the cooking process with 
natural gas and evaluate the cooking process and emissions unrelated to 
the fuel used. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that DOE's question in the February 2023 SNOPR 
regarding indoor air pollutants released by gas cooking products is 
biased and focused only on the potential indoor air pollutants released 
by gas products. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 37-38) AHAM commented that 
pollutants are released by indoor cooking no matter the fuel, with the 
main concern related to PM2.5. (Id.) AHAM commented that 
PM2.5 results from cooking and is at the same or similar 
levels whether the cooking product is gas or electric. (Id.) AHAM 
commented that the standard from the American Society of Heating, 
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE''), 62.2, 
Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Residential 
Buildings, has for decades been used to establish the proper 
requirements for dealing with contaminants of concern and requires a 
minimum air flow and external venting (or equivalent continuous 
venting) regardless of the fuel. (Id.)
    NPGA commented that gas cooking products have not been proven to 
contribute substantially to indoor air quality or health hazards, and 
reputable sources such as the Center for Disease Control and the 
medical journal Lancet do not identify a correlation between the use of 
gas cooking products and asthma. (NPGA, No. 2270 at pp. 10-11) NPGA 
commented that any health benefits to consumers would not be affected 
by enhanced efficiency standards but could be affected by improved 
ventilation through high-efficiency range hoods, exhaust fans, or 
opened windows. NPGA commented that these solutions are outside the 
scope of this rulemaking and that DOE lacks scientific, peer-reviewed 
studies showing a link between the use of gas cooking products and 
hazardous indoor air pollutants. (Id.)
    Western Energy Alliance commented that DOE's review of scientific 
literature regarding indoor air emissions is too narrow, and the few 
studies referenced are biased. (Western Energy Alliance, No. 2272 at 
pp. 9-11) Western Energy Alliance recommended DOE include a more 
complete analysis. (Id.) Western Energy Alliance commented that DOE has 
overlooked a well-established air study from the International Study of 
Asthma and Allergies in Childhood that negates the claims from Seals et 
al. 2020. (Id. at p. 11)
    ONE Gas commented that DOE's interest in the IAQ issues of consumer 
gas cooking is misplaced and should be omitted from rulemaking 
considerations as DOE is straying into health and safety issues beyond 
its rulemaking role as authorized in EPCA. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 9-
10; ONE Gas, No. 10109 at p. 4) ONE Gas commented that health or safety 
claims of covered products is the role of the U.S. Consumer Product 
Safety Commission (``CPSC''), and DOE should focus on ``technologically 
feasible and economically justified'' minimum efficiency standards. 
(Id.)
    Michael D. submitted a California Restaurant Association/California 
Building Industry Association/Catalyst Environmental Solutions research 
study entitled ``The Effects of Cooking on Indoor Air Quality: A 
Critical Review of the Literature with an Emphasis on the Use of 
Natural Gas Appliances'' by Tormey and Huntley, which included five key 
findings: (1) the type of appliance--natural gas or electric--used to 
cook food indoors is not a significant determinant of residential 
indoor air; (2) IAQ is impacted far more by the act of cooking than the 
fuel used, and the most effective method to protect health is to 
provide proper ventilation; (3) many additional factors influence 
emissions during cooking, including the type of food, the oils used, 
cooking temperatures and time, and proper ventilation; (4) reports 
linking gas cooking to negative health outcomes often rely on analyses 
that do not make that connection; and (5) the International Study of 
Asthma and Allergies in Childhood, the largest worldwide epidemiologic 
project focused on links between gas stove use and asthma, found that 
for 512,707 primary and secondary school children from 47 countries, 
there was ``no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a 
cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis.'' (Michael 
D., No. 2490 at p. 1)
    DOE acknowledges the significant uncertainty in quantifying the 
impact of higher gas stove efficiency on indoor air quality and 
associated health outcomes. In particular, multiple commenters provided 
additional studies pointing to the role of ventilation in affecting 
indoor air quality. Given the high degree of uncertainty, DOE has not 
tried to quantify how higher gas stove efficiency standards might 
affect occupant health, apart from continuing to monetize the health 
impact of decreased NOX and SO2 emissions, which 
is applicable to both gas and electric products (due to emissions from 
power plants). See chapter 14 of this direct final rule TSD for 
details.
    FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel 
combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels, 
and ``fugitive'' emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of 
CH4 and CO2, are estimated based on the 
methodology described in chapter 15 of the direct final rule TSD.
    The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical 
units per MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. For power sector 
emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by 
sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the 
energy savings calculated in the national impact analysis.
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects 
the AEO, which incorporates the projected impacts of existing air 
quality regulations on emissions. AEO2023 reflects, to the extent 
possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022, 
including the emissions control programs discussed in the following 
paragraphs the emissions control programs discussed in the following 
paragraphs, and the Inflation Reduction Act.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ For further information, see the Assumptions to AEO2023 
report that sets forth the major assumptions used to generate the 
projections in the Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed Aug. 3, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units 
(``EGUs'') are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-
trade programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 
cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and 
the District of Columbia (``DC''). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) 
SO2 emissions from numerous States in the eastern half of 
the United States are also limited under the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule (``CSAPR''). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these 
States to reduce certain emissions, including annual SO2 
emissions, and went into effect as of

[[Page 11495]]

January 1, 2015.\116\ AEO incorporates implementation of CSAPR, 
including the update to the CSAPR ozone season program emission budgets 
and target dates issued in 2016. 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). 
Compliance with CSAPR is flexible among EGUs and is enforced through 
the use of tradable emissions allowances. Under existing EPA 
regulations, for States subject to SO2 emissions limits 
under CSAPR, any excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting 
from the lower electricity demand caused by the adoption of an 
efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting increases in 
SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ CSAPR requires States to address annual emissions of 
SO2 and NOX, precursors to the formation of 
fine particulate matter (``PM2.5'') pollution, in order 
to address the interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (``NAAQS''). CSAPR also requires certain States to address 
the ozone season (May-September) emissions of NOX, a 
precursor to the formation of ozone pollution, in order to address 
the interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 1997 
ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). EPA subsequently issued a 
supplemental rule that included an additional five States in the 
CSAPR ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 
(Supplemental Rule), and EPA issued the CSAPR Update for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in 2016, SO2 emissions began to fall as a 
result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (``MATS'') for power 
plants.\117\ 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). The direct final rule 
establishes power plant emission standards for mercury, acid gases, and 
non-mercury metallic toxic pollutants. Because of the emissions 
reductions under the MATS, it is unlikely that excess SO2 
emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand would 
be needed or used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 
emissions by another regulated EGU. Therefore, energy conservation 
standards that decrease electricity generation will generally reduce 
SO2 emissions. DOE estimated SO2 emissions 
reduction using emissions factors based on AEO2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ In order to continue operating, coal power plants must 
have either flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 
systems installed. Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid 
gas emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IER commented that DOE's statement that SO2 emissions 
began to fall in 2016 as a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics 
Standards for power plants is not supported by the data. IER commented 
that SO2 emissions were falling for decades prior to 2016 
and have flattened since 2016. (IER, No. 2274 at p. 7)
    It is correct that SO2 emissions from the electric power 
sector were declining prior to 2016, but EIA statistics show that the 
decline accelerated beginning in 2015.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_09_01.html (last 
accessed Aug. 3, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CSAPR also established limits on NOX emissions for 
numerous States in the eastern half of the United States. Energy 
conservation standards would have little effect on NOX 
emissions in those States covered by CSAPR emissions limits if excess 
NOX emissions allowances resulting from the lower 
electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases in 
NOX emissions from other EGUs. In such case, NOX 
emissions would remain near the limit even if electricity generation 
goes down. Depending on the configuration of the power sector in the 
different regions and the need for allowances, however, NOX 
emissions might not remain at the limit in the case of lower 
electricity demand. That would mean that standards might reduce 
NOX emissions in covered States. Despite this possibility, 
DOE has chosen to be conservative in its analysis and has maintained 
the assumption that standards will not reduce NOX emissions 
in States covered by CSAPR. Standards would be expected to reduce 
NOX emissions in the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE used 
AEO2023 data to derive NOX emissions factors for the group 
of States not covered by CSAPR.
    The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not 
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation 
standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE 
estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on 
AEO2023, which incorporates the MATS.

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this direct final rule, for the 
purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, 
DOE considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced 
emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, 
NOX, and SO2 that are expected to result from 
each of the TSLs considered. In order to make this calculation 
analogous to the calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE 
considered the reduced emissions expected to result over the lifetime 
of products shipped in the projection period for each TSL. This section 
summarizes the basis for the values used for monetizing the emissions 
benefits and presents the values considered in this direct final rule.
    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.
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions 
of CO2, CH4, and N2O by using a 
measure of the SC of each pollutant (e.g., SC-CO2). These 
estimates represent the monetary value of the net harm to society 
associated with a marginal increase in emissions of these pollutants in 
a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. These estimates 
are intended to include (but are not limited to) climate-change-related 
changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property 
damages from increased flood risk, disruption of energy systems, risk 
of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem 
services.
    DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate 
benefits as recommended by applicable Executive orders, and DOE would 
reach the same conclusion presented in this rulemaking in the absence 
of the social cost of greenhouse gases. That is, the social costs of 
greenhouse gases, whether measured using the February 2021 interim 
estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost 
of Greenhouse Gases or by another means, did not affect the rule 
ultimately adopted by DOE.
    DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO2, 
CH4, and N2O reductions using SC-GHG values that 
were based on the interim values 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 (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). The SC-GHGs is the monetary 
value of the net harm to society associated with a marginal increase in 
emissions in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. In 
principle, SC-GHGs includes the value of all climate change impacts, 
including (but not limited to) changes in net agricultural 
productivity, human health effects, property damage from increased 
flood risk and natural disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of 
conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. 
The SC-GHGs therefore reflects the societal value of reducing emissions 
of the gas in question by one metric ton. The SC-GHGs is the 
theoretically appropriate value to use in conducting benefit-cost 
analyses of policies that affect CO2, N2O and 
CH4

[[Page 11496]]

emissions. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the 
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees that the interim SC-GHG estimates 
represent the most appropriate estimate of the SC-GHG for this rule, 
which was developed using the interim estimates. DOE continues to 
evaluate recent developments in the scientific literature, including 
EPA's December 2023 SC-GHG estimates.
    The SC-GHGs estimates presented here were developed over many 
years, using transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best 
science available at the time of that process, and with input from the 
public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, which included DOE and other 
executive branch agencies and offices, was established to ensure that 
agencies were using the best available science and to promote 
consistency in the social cost of carbon (``SC-CO2'') values 
used across agencies. The IWG published SC-CO2 estimates in 
2010 that were developed from an ensemble of three widely cited 
integrated assessment models (``IAMs'') that estimate global climate 
damages using highly aggregated representations of climate processes 
and the global economy combined into a single modeling framework. The 
three IAMs were run using a common set of input assumptions in each 
model for future population, economic, and CO2 emissions 
growth, as well as equilibrium climate sensitivity--a measure of the 
globally averaged temperature response to increased atmospheric 
CO2 concentrations. These estimates were updated in 2013 
based on new versions of each IAM. In August 2016 the IWG published 
estimates of the social cost of methane (``SC-CH4'') and 
nitrous oxide (``SC-N2O'') using methodologies that are 
consistent with the methodology underlying the SC-CO2 
estimates. The modeling approach that extends the IWG SC-CO2 
methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has undergone multiple stages of 
peer review. The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates were 
developed by Marten et al.\119\ and underwent a standard double-blind 
peer review process prior to journal publication. In 2015, as part of 
the response to public comments received to a 2013 solicitation for 
comments on the SC-CO2 estimates, the IWG announced a 
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine review of the 
SC-CO2 estimates to offer advice on how to approach future 
updates to ensure that the estimates continue to reflect the best 
available science and methodologies. In January 2017, the National 
Academies released their final report, Valuing Climate Damages: 
Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and 
recommended specific criteria for future updates to the SC-
CO2 estimates, a modeling framework to satisfy the specified 
criteria, and both near-term updates and longer-term research needs 
pertaining to various components of the estimation process.\120\ 
Shortly thereafter, in March 2017, President Trump issued Executive 
Order 13783, which disbanded the IWG, withdrew the previous TSDs, and 
directed agencies to ensure SC-CO2 estimates used in 
regulatory analyses are consistent with the guidance contained in OMB's 
Circular A-4, ``including with respect to the consideration of domestic 
versus international impacts and the consideration of appropriate 
discount rates'' (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). Benefit-cost analyses 
following Executive Order (``E.O.'') 13783 used SC-GHG estimates that 
attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific share of climate change damages 
as estimated by the models and were calculated using two discount rates 
recommended by Circular A-4, 3 percent and 7 percent. All other 
methodological decisions and model versions used in SC-GHG calculations 
remained the same as those used by the IWG in 2010 and 2013, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. Newbold, 
and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and N2O 
mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S. Government's SC-CO2 
estimates. Climate Policy. 2015. 15(2): pp. 272-298.
    \120\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 
Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of 
Carbon Dioxide. 2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 
nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/24651/valuing-climate-damages-updating-estimation-of-the-social-cost-of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, 
which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S. 
Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other 
greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the 
recommendations in the National Academies 2017 report. The IWG was 
tasked with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in 
Federal analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the 
E.O. that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking 
global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in 
February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this 
rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller update of 
the SC-GHG estimates that takes into consideration the advice in the 
National Academies 2017 report and other recent scientific literature. 
The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a complete discussion of the 
IWG's initial review conducted under E.O.13990. In particular, the IWG 
found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect 
the full impact of GHG emissions in multiple ways.
    First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 
13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the 
welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better 
reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of omitted effects 
from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens, 
assets, and investments located abroad, supply chains, U.S. military 
assets and interests abroad, and tourism, and spillover pathways such 
as economic and political destabilization and global migration that can 
lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and 
humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG 
mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may 
affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international 
mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 
residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and 
residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have 
emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global 
damages of GHG emissions. If the United States does not consider 
impacts on other countries, it is difficult to convince other countries 
to consider the impacts of their emissions on the United States. The 
only way to achieve an efficient allocation of resources for emissions 
reduction on a global basis--and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens--
is for all countries to base their policies on global estimates of 
damages. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the 
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and, 
therefore, in this direct final rule DOE centers attention on a global 
measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as that taken in DOE 
regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A robust estimate of 
climate damages that accrue only to U.S. citizens and residents does 
not currently exist in the literature. As explained in the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD, existing estimates are both incomplete and an 
underestimate of total damages that accrue to the citizens and 
residents of the U.S. because they do not fully capture the regional 
interactions and spillovers discussed above, nor do they

[[Page 11497]]

include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts 
of climate change recognized in the climate change literature. As noted 
in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG will continue to review 
developments in the literature, including more robust methodologies for 
estimating a U.S.-specific SC-GHG value, and explore ways to better 
inform the public of the full range of carbon impacts. As a member of 
the IWG, DOE will continue to follow developments in the literature 
pertaining to this issue.
    Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on 
capital (7 percent under current Office of Management and Budget 
(``OMB'') Circular A-4 guidance) to discount the future benefits of 
reducing GHG emissions inappropriately underestimates the impacts of 
climate change for the purposes of estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent 
with the findings of the National Academies and the economic 
literature, the IWG continued to conclude that the consumption rate of 
interest is the theoretically appropriate discount rate in an 
intergenerational context,\121\ and recommended that discount rate 
uncertainty and relevant aspects of intergenerational ethical 
considerations be accounted for in selecting future discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Social 
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 
12866. 2010. United States Government www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf (last accessed April 15, 
2022); Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Technical 
Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis 
Under Executive Order 12866. 2013 www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technical-update-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact (last accessed 
April 15, 2022); Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Technical Support 
Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under Executive Order 12866. August 2016 
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf (last accessed Jan. 18, 2022); 
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United 
States Government. Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social 
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 
12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of 
Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016 
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf (last accessed Jan. 18, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG 
are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of 
OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the 
consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this 
assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature 
pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes that while OMB Circular A-4, 
as published in 2003, recommends using 3-percent and 7-percent discount 
rates as ``default'' values, Circular A-4 also reminds agencies that 
``different regulations may call for different emphases in the 
analysis, depending on the nature and complexity of the regulatory 
issues and the sensitivity of the benefit and cost estimates to the key 
assumptions.'' On discounting, Circular A-4 recognizes that ``special 
ethical considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across 
generations,'' and Circular A-4 acknowledges that analyses may 
appropriately ``discount future costs and consumption benefits . . . at 
a lower rate than for intragenerational analysis.'' In the 2015 
Response to Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG members recognized that 
``Circular A-4 is a living document'' and ``the use of 7 percent is not 
considered appropriate for intergenerational discounting. There is wide 
support for this view in the academic literature, and it is recognized 
in Circular A-4 itself.'' Thus, DOE concludes that a 7-percent discount 
rate is not appropriate to apply to value the social cost of greenhouse 
gases in the analysis presented in this analysis.
    To calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits, 
DOE uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value 
of damages from future GHG emissions, for internal consistency. That 
approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD recommends ``to ensure internal consistency--i.e., 
future damages from climate change using the SC-GHG at 2.5 percent 
should be discounted to the base year of the analysis using the same 
2.5 percent rate.'' DOE has also consulted the National Academies' 2017 
recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates can ``be combined in RIAs with 
other cost and benefits estimates that may use different discount 
rates.'' The National Academies reviewed several options, including 
``presenting all discount rate combinations of other costs and benefits 
with [SC-GHG] estimates.''
    As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the above assessment and will continue 
to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. 
While the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer 
reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it set 
the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by the 
IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely on 
the same models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a range 
of discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the 
IWG has recommended that agencies revert to the same set of four values 
drawn from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount rates as 
were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and were subject 
to public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the 
distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios 
(applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values 
recommended for use in benefit-cost analyses: an average value 
resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5 
percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, selected as 
the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3-percent discount rate. 
The fourth value was included to provide information on potentially 
higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change. As explained 
in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and DOE agrees, this update reflects 
the immediate need to have an operational SC-GHG for use in regulatory 
benefit-cost analyses and other applications that was developed using a 
transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and the science 
available at the time of that process. Those estimates were subject to 
public comment in the context of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well 
as in a dedicated public comment period in 2013.
    There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with 
the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic 
understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates 
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 
change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or 
lower.\122\ Second, the IAMs used to produce these interim estimates do 
not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic 
impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature 
and the science underlying their ``damage functions''--i.e., the core 
parts of the IAMs that map global mean temperature

[[Page 11498]]

changes and other physical impacts of climate change into economic 
(both market and nonmarket) damages--lags behind the most recent 
research. For example, limitations include the incomplete treatment of 
catastrophic and non-catastrophic impacts in the integrated assessment 
models, their incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological 
change, the incomplete way in which inter-regional and intersectoral 
linkages are modeled, uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to 
high temperatures, and inadequate representation of the relationship 
between the discount rate and uncertainty in economic growth over long 
time horizons. Likewise, the socioeconomic and emissions scenarios used 
as inputs to the models do not reflect new information from the last 
decade of scenario generation or the full range of projections. The 
modeling limitations do not all work in the same direction in terms of 
their influence on the SC-CO2 estimates. However, as 
discussed in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG has recommended 
that, taken together, the limitations suggest that the interim SC-GHG 
estimates used in this direct final rule likely underestimate the 
damages from GHG emissions. DOE concurs with this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases. 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, 
Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 
13990. February. United States Government. Available at 
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climate-pollution/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received 
regarding its approach for monetizing greenhouse gas emissions in the 
February 2023 SNOPR. The approach used for this direct final rule is 
largely the same approach DOE had used for the February 2023 SNOPR 
analysis.
    In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, the AGs of LA et al. 
recommended that DOE avoid using or referencing the IWG estimates in 
its analysis and that DOE clarify the role of the SC-GHG in its 
analysis. (AGs of LA et al., No. 2264 at pp. 2-7) The AGs of LA et al. 
commented that DOE's use of the IWG numbers is in direct conflict with 
EPCA's directions and that there is no way to determine if the effect 
of the standards proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR on GHG emissions 
has an economic impact. (Id. at pp. 8-9)
    AHAM stated its objection to DOE's use of SC-GHG and other 
monetization of emissions reductions benefits in its analysis of the 
factors EPCA requires DOE to balance to determine the appropriate 
standard. (AHAM, No. 2885 at pp. 52-53) AHAM commented it is 
inappropriate for DOE to rely on the highly subjective and ever-
changing monetization estimates in justifying an energy conservation 
standard. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE has responded to these 
objections by indicating that environmental and public health benefits 
associated with the more efficient use of energy, including those 
connected to global climate change, are important to take into account 
when considering the need for national energy conservation, which is 
one of the factors EPCA requires DOE to evaluate in determining whether 
a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified, and 
AHAM does not object to DOE considering the benefits. AHAM commented 
that DOE can consider ``other factors'' under EPCA, but that does not 
override the key criteria EPCA requires DOE to balance and DOE must 
consider EPCA's factors together and achieve a balance of impacts and 
benefits--a balance DOE has failed to strike in this rule. (Id.)
    APGA stated concern with DOE's use of the SC-GHG in its cost-
benefit analysis because such a large percentage of the total benefits 
of the proposed rulemaking result from these values. (APGA, No. 2283 at 
pp. 6-7) APGA commented that DOE's reliance on these SC-GHG values is 
flawed and brings into question whether the proposed ECS is actually 
economically justified. (Id.)
    ONE Gas commented that DOE should table inclusion of SC-GHG 
benefits until the legal validity of these benefits used in minimum 
efficiency standards is resolved, and that any analysis of SC-GHG 
benefits should reflect the full range of uncertainty associated with 
IWG cost estimates. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at p. 15)
    Strauch asserted that the social cost of carbon is difficult to 
quantify, an issue that is exacerbated by deviating climate models. 
(Strauch, No. 2263 at p. 3) Strauch recommended that DOE avoid weak and 
controversial cost constructs. (Id.)
    In response to the foregoing comments, DOE reiterates its view that 
the environmental and public health benefits associated with more 
efficient use of energy, including those connected to global climate 
change, are important to take into account when considering the need 
for national energy conservation. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 
In addition, Executive Order 13563, which was re-affirmed on January 
21, 2021, stated that each agency must, among other things: ``select, 
in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches 
that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, 
environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; 
distributive impacts; and equity).'' For these reasons, DOE considers 
the monetized value of emissions reductions in its evaluation of 
potential standard levels. While the benefits associated with reduction 
of GHG emissions inform DOE's evaluation of potential standards, DOE 
would reach the same conclusion regarding the economic justification of 
standards presented in this direct final rule without considering the 
social cost of greenhouse gases. As described in detail in section 
V.C.1 of this document, at the adopted TSL for consumer conventional 
cooking products, the average LCC savings for all product classes is 
positive, a shipment-weighted 0 percent of consumers would experience a 
net cost, and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive using both a 3-
percent and 7-percent discount rate.
    The AGs of LA et al. disagreed with DOE's policy choice to adopt 
the IWG's discount rate of 3 percent and added that calculations based 
on a 7-percent discount rate are consistent with guidance provided by 
OMB Circular A-4. (AGs of LA et al., No. 2264 at pp. 4-5) The AGs of LA 
et al. commented that the choice of a 3-percent discount rate is 
arbitrary and recommended that DOE align its chosen discount rates with 
those used for calculating the impact of the proposed standards on 
consumers and manufacturers. (Id.) Western Energy Alliance commented 
that the mixing and matching of discount rates with respect to climate 
change is inappropriate. (Western Energy Alliance, No. 2272 at pp. 7-8) 
Western Energy Alliance and Zycher recommended DOE use the 7-percent 
discount rate consistently for the 7-percent discount rate scenario. 
(Western Energy Alliance, No. 2272 at pp. 7-8; Zycher, No. 2266 at p. 
9)
    The reasons for using a consumption discount rate rather than a 
rate based on the social rate of return on capital (7 percent under OMB 
Circular A-4 guidance) were presented previously in this section.\123\ 
DOE reiterates that while OMB Circular A-4, as published in 2003, 
recommends using 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates as ``default'' 
values, Circular A-4 also reminds agencies that ``different regulations 
may call for different emphases in the analysis, depending on the 
nature and complexity of the regulatory issues and the sensitivity of 
the benefit and cost estimates to the key assumptions.'' On 
discounting, Circular A-4 recognizes that ``special ethical 
considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across 
generations,'' and Circular A-4 acknowledges that analyses may 
appropriately ``discount future costs and

[[Page 11499]]

consumption benefits . . . at a lower rate than for intragenerational 
analysis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ DOE used the prior version of Circular A-4 (September 17, 
2003) in accordance with the effective date of the November 9, 2023, 
version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AGs of LA et al. disagreed with DOE's policy choice to accept 
IWG's measurement of global damages in lieu of domestic damages, and 
with DOE's choice to adopt the IWG's decision to run the IAMs through a 
300-year time span. (AGs of LA et al., No. 2264 at pp. 3-4, 5-6) The 
AGs of LA et al. noted that outside of the GHG emissions context, DOE 
uses a 30-year horizon to analyze the costs and benefits of the 
proposed rule on consumers, which makes the analysis of costs and 
benefits incomparable to the analysis of SC-GHGs. (Id. at pp. 5-6)
    Regarding the use of global SC-GHG values, as previously discussed, 
many climate impacts that affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and 
residents are better reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. In 
addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation activities 
requires consideration of how those actions may affect mitigation 
activities by other countries, as those international mitigation 
actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and residents by 
mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and residents.
    Regarding the use of different time horizons for the SC-GHG values 
and the other costs and benefits of potential standards, DOE's analysis 
considers the costs and benefits associated with 30 years of shipments 
of a covered product. Because such products continue to operate beyond 
30 years, DOE accounts for energy cost savings and reductions in 
emissions until all products shipped within the 30-year period are 
retired. In the case of CO2 emissions, which remain in the 
atmosphere and contribute to climate change for many decades, the 
benefits of reductions in emissions likewise occur over a lengthy 
period; to not include such benefits would be inappropriate.
    The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of 
Law (``Policy Integrity'') commented that DOE should consider applying 
sensitivity analysis using EPA's draft climate-damage estimates 
released in November 2022, as EPA's work faithfully implements the 
roadmap laid out in 2017 by the National Academies of Sciences and 
applies recent advances in the science and economics on the costs of 
climate change. (Policy Integrity, No. 2280 at pp. 1, 3)
    DOE is aware that in December 2023, EPA issued a new set of SC-GHG 
estimates in connection with a final rulemaking under the Clean Air 
Act.\124\ DOE continues to evaluate recent developments in the 
scientific literature, including EPA's December 2023 SC-GHG estimates. 
DOE notes that because EPA's estimates are considerably higher than the 
IWG's interim SC-GHG values applied for this direct final rule, DOE 
anticipates that an analysis that used the EPA's estimates would result 
in significantly greater climate-related benefits. Even if that were 
the case, however, such results would not affect DOE's decision in this 
direct final rule. As stated elsewhere in this document, DOE would 
reach the same conclusion regarding the economic justification of the 
standards presented in this direct final rule because the standards are 
economically justified even without considering the IWG's interim SC-
GHG values, which DOE agrees are conservative estimates. For the same 
reason, if DOE were to use EPA's higher SC-GHG estimates, they would 
likewise not change DOE's conclusion that the standards are 
economically justified because the standards are economically justified 
even without considering EPA's SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AGs of LA et al. asserted that the IWG's analysis of the three 
IAMs used to determine SC-GHG damages is flawed because a number of 
factually based assumptions cause the SC-GHG to swing from positive to 
negative, making them too sensitive to be reliable. (AGs of LA et al., 
No. 2264 at pp. 2-7) The AGs of LA et al. commented that several policy 
choices made by the IWG contribute to an overestimated SC-GHG 
calculation. (Id.) The AGs of LA et al. also commented that the IWG's 
projections do not account for the emissions-reducing policies being 
instituted globally. (Id.) The AGs of LA et al. commented that the IWG 
estimates are both flawed and unlawful, considering the result of the 
district court's decision in Louisiana v. Biden, 585 F. Supp. 3d 840 
(W.D. La. 2022), vacated, Louisiana ex rel Landry v. Biden, 64 F.4th 
674 (5th Cir. 2023), in which a preliminary injunction barred DOE from 
adopting the IWG estimates based on EPCA's direction to preclude the 
consideration of global effects. (Id. at pp. 7-8) The AGs of LA et al. 
commented that DOE cannot overlook this injunction by relying on the 
Fifth Circuit's interlocutory order, and instead must justify why the 
Louisiana court was incorrect in its conclusion or why DOE may use the 
IWG estimates regardless. (Id.)
    APGA restated comments it submitted to OMB jointly with over 20 
other trade associations \125\ that the interim SC-GHG values developed 
by IWG in response to E.O. 13990 require additional modifications 
before use in Federal rulemakings or policy decisions. (APGA, No. 2283 
at pp. 6-7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/CEQ-2021-0002-33767.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CO2 Coalition asserted that the IWG SC-GHG estimates 
relied on peer review and consensus, not the scientific method, and the 
estimates relied on scientifically invalid models, extreme weather 
conclusions, and catastrophic global warming theory. (CO2 
Coalition, No. 2275 at pp. 8-15) The CO2 Coalition 
incorporated by reference all arguments made against use of the social 
cost of carbon by the State of Louisiana in Louisiana v. Biden. 
(CO2 Coalition, No. 2275 at pp. 15-19, 21)
    Rachael Wilfong and Kevin Dayaratna (``Wilfong and Dayaratna'') 
\126\ commented that the climate benefits of the proposed rule are 
arbitrary and overstated. Wilfong and Dayaratna stated that testing 
with several models, subjecting their sensitivity to a variety of 
important and reasonable assumptions, found the models can offer a 
plethora of different estimates of the SC-GHG, ranging from extreme 
damages to overall benefits. Wilfong and Dayaratna commented that they 
used EPA's climate change model and found that assuming the upper bound 
of the IPCC's climate sensitivity estimates, DOE's estimated reduction 
in CO2 would result in a global temperature mitigation of 
only 0.0004 [deg]C by 2050 and 0.0009 [deg]C by 2100. (Wilfong and 
Dayaratna, No. 2281 at pp. 7-10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Although these individual commenters are associated with 
the Heritage Foundation, the comment states that the views expressed 
in it should not be construed as representing any official position 
of the Heritage Foundation. (Wilfong and Dayaratna, No. 2281 at p. 
1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CEI et al. commented that IWG 2021 uses improperly low discount 
rates, relies on climate models that have consistently overstated 
actual warming, and on baseline emission scenarios that implausibly 
assume an increasingly coal-centric global energy system through 2100 
and beyond, while downplaying the capacity for adaptation to mitigate 
climate impacts. CEI et al. added that IWG 2021's inclusion of claimed 
climate benefits nearly 300 years into the future and the use of global 
rather than national benefits are also skewed toward inflating the end 
result. (CEI et al., No. 2287 at pp. 6-7)
    Zycher commented that the IWG estimates are flawed for a number of 
reasons, including the use of inconsistent and inappropriate discount 
rates. Zycher commented that DOE's

[[Page 11500]]

adoption of the IWG estimates is misguided because the IWG considers 
global emissions. (Zycher, No. 2266 at pp. 4-7)
    Policy Integrity commented that DOE appropriately applies the 
social cost estimates developed by the IWG to its analysis of climate 
benefits. Policy Integrity commented that these values are widely 
agreed to underestimate the full social costs of greenhouse gas 
emissions, but for now they remain appropriate to use as conservative 
estimates. Policy Integrity incorporated by reference comments on DOE's 
recent proposed standards for room air conditioners, which present 
numerous legal, economic, and policy justifications that further 
bolster DOE's adoption of the Working Group's climate-damage 
valuations. (Policy Integrity, No. 2280 at pp. 1-3)
    Western Energy Alliance commented that the SC-GHG estimates are 
inappropriate to include within this or any rule until the estimates 
have been subjected to the Administrative Procedure Act process 
complete with public notice and comment. (Western Energy Alliance, No. 
2272 at pp. 5-9)
    In response to the foregoing comments, DOE notes that the IWG's SC-
GHG estimates were developed over many years, using a transparent 
process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best science available at the 
time of that process, and with input from the public. A number of 
criticisms raised in the comments were addressed by the IWG in its 
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and previous parts of this section summarized 
the IWG's conclusions on several key issues. DOE agrees that the 
interim SC-GHG values applied for this direct final rule are 
conservative estimates. In the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG stated 
that the models used to produce the interim estimates do not include 
all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of 
climate change recognized in the climate change literature. For these 
same impacts, the science underlying their ``damage functions'' lags 
behind the most recent research. In the judgment of the IWG, these and 
other limitations suggest that the range of four interim SC-GHG 
estimates presented in the TSD likely underestimate societal damages 
from GHG emissions. The IWG is in the process of assessing how best to 
incorporate the latest peer-reviewed science and the recommendations of 
the National Academies to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates. 
DOE also notes that the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's 
decision on which the AGs of LA et al. rely.
    DOE's derivations of the SC-CO2, SC-N2O, and 
SC-CH4 values used for this direct final rule are discussed 
in the following sections, and the results of DOE's analyses estimating 
the benefits of the reductions in emissions of these GHGs are presented 
in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE considers the monetized value of 
emissions reductions in its evaluation of potential standard levels. 
While the benefits associated with reduction of GHG emissions inform 
DOE's evaluation of potential standards, DOE would reach the same 
conclusion regarding the economic justification of standards presented 
in this direct final rule without considering the social cost of 
greenhouse gases.
a. Social Cost of Carbon
    The SC-CO2 values used for this direct final rule were 
based on the values developed for the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, which 
are shown in Table IV.31 in 5-year increments from 2020 to 2050. The 
set of annual values that DOE used, which was adapted from estimates 
published by EPA,\127\ is presented in appendix 14A of the direct final 
rule TSD. These estimates are based on methods, assumptions, and 
parameters identical to the estimates published by the IWG (which were 
based on EPA modeling), and include values for 2051 to 2070. DOE 
expects additional climate benefits to accrue for products still 
operating after 2070, but a lack of available SC-CO2 
estimates for emissions years beyond 2070 prevents DOE from monetizing 
these potential benefits in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty 
Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
Washington, DC, December 2021. Available at nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013ORN.pdf (last accessed Feb. 21, 2023).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.038

    DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for 
each year by the SC-CO2 value for that year in each of the 
four cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2022$ using the implicit price 
deflator for gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of 
Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of the stream of 
monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases 
using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-
CO2 values in each case.
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values used for this 
direct final rule were based on the values developed for the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD. Table IV.32 shows the updated sets of SC-
CH4 and SC-N2O estimates from the latest 
interagency update in 5-year increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set 
of annual values used is presented in Appendix 14A of the direct final 
rule TSD. To capture the uncertainties involved in regulatory

[[Page 11501]]

impact analysis, DOE has determined it is appropriate to include all 
four sets of SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values, as 
recommended by the IWG. DOE derived values (based on EPA values) after 
2050 using the approach described above for the SC-CO2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.039

    DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O emissions 
reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates for that year in each of the cases. DOE 
adjusted the values to 2022$ using the implicit price deflator for GDP 
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of 
the stream of monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the 
cases using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the 
SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates in each case.
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
    For the direct final rule, DOE estimated the monetized value of 
NOX and SO2 emissions reductions from electricity 
generation using benefit per ton estimates for that sector from the 
EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program.\128\ DOE used EPA's values 
for PM2.5-related benefits associated with NOX 
and SO2 and for ozone-related benefits associated with 
NOX for 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040, calculated with discount 
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. DOE used linear interpolation to 
define values for the years not given in the 2025 to 2040 range; for 
years beyond 2040 the values are held constant (rather than 
extrapolated) to be conservative. DOE combined the EPA regional 
benefit-per-ton estimates with regional information on electricity 
consumption and emissions from AEO2023 to define weighted-average 
national values for NOX and SO2 (see appendix 14B 
of the direct final rule TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Estimating the 
Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly-Emitted PM2.5, 
PM2.5 Precursors, and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. 
Available at www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-directly-emitted-pm25-pm25-precursors-and-ozone-precursors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also estimated the monetized value of NOX and 
SO2 emissions reductions from site use of natural gas in 
consumer conventional cooking products using benefit per ton estimates 
from the EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program. Although none of 
the sectors covered by EPA refers specifically to residential and 
commercial buildings, the sector called ``area sources'' would be a 
reasonable proxy for residential and commercial buildings.\129\ The EPA 
document provides high and low estimates for 2025 and 2030 at 3- and 7-
percent discount rates.\130\ DOE used the same linear interpolation and 
extrapolation as it did with the values for electricity generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ ``Area sources'' represents all emission sources for which 
States do not have exact (point) locations in their emissions 
inventories. Because exact locations would tend to be associated 
with larger sources, ``area sources'' would be fairly representative 
of small dispersed sources like homes and businesses.
    \130\ ``Area sources'' are a category in the 2018 document from 
EPA, but are not used in the 2021 document cited above. See 
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-02/documents/sourceapportionmentbpttsd_2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the site emissions reduction (in tons) in each year 
by the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series using 
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as appropriate.

M. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates the changes in installed 
electrical capacity and generation projected to result for each 
considered TSL. The analysis is based on published output from the NEMS 
associated with AEO2023. NEMS produces the AEO Reference case, as well 
as a number of side cases that estimate the economy-wide impacts of 
changes to energy supply and demand. For the current analysis, impacts 
are quantified by comparing the levels of electricity sector 
generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption and emissions in the 
AEO2023 Reference case and various side cases. Details of the 
methodology are provided in the appendices to chapters 13 and 15 of the 
direct final rule TSD.
    The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients 
that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel 
consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a 
unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are 
multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA 
to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or 
amended energy conservation standards.
    The utility analysis also estimates the impact on gas utilities in 
terms of projected changes in natural gas deliveries to consumers for 
each TSL.
    AGA commented that the Process Rule requires DOE to conduct a 
utility impact analysis to ``include estimated marginal impacts on 
electric and gas utility costs and revenues'' in its standards 
rulemakings. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 51-52) AGA commented that the 
February 2023 SNOPR states that DOE conducted some analysis related to 
electric utilities, and even less for natural gas utilities, concluding 
that ``the impact to natural gas utility sales is equivalent to the 
natural gas saved by the proposed standard.'' (Id.) AGA

[[Page 11502]]

commented that the analysis and findings were insufficient and DOE 
should adhere to the Process Rule and conduct a complete impact 
analysis that quantifies and evaluates the marginal impacts to gas 
utility costs and revenues of a reduction in gas deliveries due to the 
proposed rule. (Id.) AGA commented that DOE should also analyze the 
impact to retail natural gas ratepayers due to DOE's acknowledgement 
that the proposed standards could drive many consumers from natural gas 
to electric for cooking, with a loss of demand for natural gas local 
distribution companies that could lead to higher rates on remaining 
consumers to cover fixed distribution costs. (Id.) AGA commented that 
if DOE chooses to deviate from the Process Rule, it must explain why 
deviation is necessary or appropriate and allow stakeholder comments on 
that explanation. (Id.)
    In the context of this direct final rule, DOE maintains that the 
marginal impacts on gas utility costs and revenues would be minimal, 
given that the estimated reduction in annual gas demand at the 
Recommended TSL is a very small fraction of total U.S. residential gas 
demand (see chapter 15 of the direct final rule TSD). DOE maintains 
that utilities will not be impacted from fuel switching because 
consumers are unlikely to switch from gas to electric products as a 
result of the adopted standard (see section IV.G of this document for 
details). Lastly, analysis of the impact of standards on rates is very 
difficult, given the diversity of regulatory structures in the U.S. and 
the many factors that go into setting utility rates.

N. Employment Impact Analysis

    DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one 
factor in selecting a standard. Employment impacts from new or amended 
energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect impacts. 
Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of 
manufacturers of the products subject to standards, their suppliers, 
and related service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect 
employment impacts are changes in national employment that occur due to 
the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase 
and operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect employment impacts 
from standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the 
national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being 
regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on energy, (2) 
reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry, (3) 
increased consumer spending on the products to which the new standards 
apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects of those three 
factors throughout the economy.
    One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for 
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector 
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's BLS. BLS 
regularly publishes its estimates of the number of jobs per million 
dollars of economic activity in different sectors of the economy, as 
well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this same economic 
activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility 
sector generally create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than 
expenditures in other sectors of the economy.\131\ There are many 
reasons for these differences, including wage differences and the fact 
that the utility sector is more capital-intensive and less labor-
intensive than other sectors. Energy conservation standards have the 
effect of reducing consumer utility bills. Because reduced consumer 
expenditures for energy likely lead to increased expenditures in other 
sectors of the economy, the general effect of efficiency standards is 
to shift economic activity from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., 
the utility sector) to more labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 
and service sectors). Thus, the BLS data suggest that net national 
employment may increase due to shifts in economic activity resulting 
from energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ See U.S. Department of Commerce-Bureau of Economic 
Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional 
Input-Output Modeling System (``RIMS II''). 1997. U.S. Government 
Printing Office: Washington, DC. Available at www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf (last accessed July 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard 
levels considered in this direct final rule using an input/output model 
of the U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 
4 (``ImSET'').\132\ ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S. 
Benchmark National Input-Output'' (``I-O'') model, which was designed 
to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving 
technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model 
having structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among 
187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential 
building energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and R.W. 
Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model 
Description and User's Guide. 2015. Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory: Richland, WA. PNNL-24563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting 
model, and that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment 
impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because 
ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects 
predicted by ImSET may overestimate actual job impacts over the long 
run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to generate results 
for near-term timeframes (2027/2028), where these uncertainties are 
reduced. For more details on the employment impact analysis, see 
chapter 16 of the direct final rule TSD.

O. Regulatory Impact Analysis

    For any regulatory action that the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') within OMB determines is 
a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as 
amended by E.O. 14094, section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866 requires 
Federal agencies to provide an assessment, including the underlying 
analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, identified by the 
agencies or the public (including improving the current regulation and 
reasonably viable non-regulatory actions), and an explanation why the 
planned regulatory action is preferable to the identified potential 
alternatives. 58 FR 51735, 51741. OIRA has determined that this final 
regulatory action constitutes a ``significant regulatory action'' 
within the scope of section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as discussed further in 
section VI.A of this document. DOE conducted a regulatory impact 
analysis (``RIA'') for this direct final rule.
    As part of the RIA, DOE identifies major alternatives to standards 
that represent feasible policy options to reduce the energy and water 
consumption of the covered product. DOE evaluates each alternative in 
terms of its ability to achieve significant energy and water savings at 
a reasonable cost, and compares the effectiveness of each alternative 
to the effectiveness of the finalized standard. DOE recognizes that 
voluntary or other non-regulatory efforts by manufacturers, utilities, 
and other interested parties can substantially affect energy and water 
efficiency or reduce energy and water consumption. DOE bases its 
assessment on the recorded impacts of any such initiatives to date, but 
also considers information presented by interested parties

[[Page 11503]]

regarding the impacts current initiatives may have in the future. 
Further details regarding the RIA are provided in chapter 17 of the 
direct final rule TSD.
    AN commented that DOE should postpone the compliance deadline for 
the proposed rule to account for the length and complexity of the 
policymaking process and ongoing global events (such as COVID 19). (AN, 
No. 374 at p. 1) AN commented that DOE should use a combination of 
economic incentives and direct regulations to promote energy 
conservation without manufacturers incurring losses. (Id. at p. 2)
    Fall suggested that a labelling program would be an alternative to 
the proposed rule that could allow consumers the ability to make 
informed decisions. (Fall, No. 376 at pp. 2-3)
    Gardener commented that the public would overall be better served 
by incentivizing manufacturers and consumers via tax credits to 
purchase products that meet the various levels of energy efficiency. 
(Gardener, No. 118 at p. 1) Gardener commented that the amount of the 
tax credits could also be tiered based on what level of efficiency is 
achieved. (Id.) Gardener commented that these types of incentives have 
worked very well in the home heating and home solar power markets and 
that this approach allows more consumer options and encourages the free 
market to respond more efficiently. (Id.)
    Strauch recommended that DOE address the cumulative regulatory 
burden on consumers in addition to manufacturers. (Strauch, No. 2263 at 
p. 3)
    Consumers' Research recommended that DOE should postpone 
establishing mandatory energy efficiency standards for gas cooking tops 
for at least another year following a successful one-year trial period 
of providing consumers with efficiencies measured using the test 
procedure in order to enhance consumer information and enable voluntary 
consumer selection of more efficient gas cooking products. (Consumers' 
Research, No. 2267 at p. 4)
    NMHC and NAA commented that the proposed rulemaking accompanies a 
series of similar rulemakings DOE is proposing, all seeking to change 
the performance standards for essential residential appliances. (NMHC 
and NAA, No. 2265 at p. 3) NMHC and NAA recommended that DOE consider 
the collective impacts of these requirements and recognize that, in 
practice, the effect of individual pricing increases is magnified when 
housing providers must manage cost escalations across multiple products 
at once. (Id.)
    Whirlpool recommended that DOE consider non-regulatory approaches 
to increasing energy efficiency, including educating consumers on 
efficient cooking behaviors and practices. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at p. 
12) Whirlpool commented that cooking products differ from other major 
appliances in that the user has substantial influence on the product's 
energy usage, and that the choices consumers make regarding their 
cooking techniques, food preferences, and choice in cookware can result 
in diverse energy usage results across consumers using the same model 
and food loads. (Id.) Whirlpool stated that according to its testing, 
the amount of energy savings DOE estimates would result from moving a 
gas cooking top from the baseline to EL 2 is roughly equivalent to the 
savings of a consumer switching from a stainless steel pot to an 
aluminum pot to boil the same amount of water, and that a consumer 
could therefore achieve roughly the same annual operating cost savings 
by switching their cookware to a more efficient material. (Id.) 
Whirlpool commented that it welcomes collaboration with DOE to achieve 
a larger savings opportunity through consumer education. (Id.)
    As discussed, E.O. 12866 directs DOE to assess potentially 
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned 
regulation, and to provide an explanation why the planned regulatory 
action is preferable to the identified potential alternatives. As part 
of the RIA, DOE analyzed five non-regulatory policy alternatives to the 
finalized standards for consumer conventional cooking products, 
including consumer rebates, consumer tax credits, manufacturer tax 
credits, voluntary energy efficiency targets, and bulk government 
purchases. Chapter 17 of the direct final rule TSD provides DOE's 
analysis of the impacts of these alternatives to the planned 
regulation.
    Notwithstanding the requirements of E.O. 12866, as discussed, DOE 
is required by EPCA to establish or amend standards for a covered 
product that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency, which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE has 
determined that setting energy conservation standards for consumer 
conventional cooking products at the Recommended TSL achieves the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency which is technologically 
feasible and economically justified.

P. Other Comments

    As discussed previously, DOE considered relevant comments, data, 
and information obtained during its own rulemaking process in 
determining whether the recommended standards from the Joint Agreement 
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). And while some of those 
comments were directed at specific aspects of DOE's analysis of the 
Joint Agreement under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), others were more generally 
applicable to DOE's energy conservation standards rulemaking program as 
a whole. The ensuing discussion focuses on these general comments 
concerning energy conservation standards issued under EPCA.
1. Commerce Clause
    The AGs of LA et al. asserted that the proposed standards, by not 
differentiating between interstate and intrastate markets, fail to 
reflect the proper scope of Federal regulation under the Commerce 
Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (AGs of LA et al., No. 2264 at pp. 10-
11) The AGs of LA et al. noted that EPCA prohibits any manufacturer or 
private labeler from distributing in commerce any new covered product 
which is not in conformity with an applicable energy conservation 
standard established pursuant to the statute [emphasis added]. 42 
U.S.C. 6302(a)(5) The AGs of LA et al. further noted that the term 
``commerce'' is defined by EPCA to mean trade, traffic commerce, or 
transportation (A) between a place in a State and any place outside 
thereof, or (B) which affects trade, traffic, commerce, or 
transportation described in subparagraph (A). (42 U.S.C. 6291(17)). The 
AGs of LA et al. asserted that by not differentiating between 
interstate and intrastate commerce--like the statutory language of 42 
U.S.C. 6291(17)--the standards cover all commercial activity, whether 
inter- or intrastate, which is improper. In summarizing previous 
Supreme Court decisions, the AGs of LA et al. further asserted that 
precedent dictates that Congress can regulate intrastate activity under 
the Commerce Clause only when that activity substantially affects 
interstate commerce. Thus, according to the AGs of LA et al., for the 
proposed standards to apply to the intrastate market for the products 
subject to this rulemaking, DOE must show that the intrastate activity 
covered by 42 U.S.C. 6291(17) and 6302(a)(5) substantially affects the 
interstate market for the products covered by this rulemaking. The AGs 
of LA et al. stated that there is no such analysis in the proposed

[[Page 11504]]

standards, and therefore no constitutional basis for application of the 
standards to intrastate markets for the products subject to this 
rulemaking. (AGs of LA et al., No. 2264 at pp. 10-11) The AGs of LA et 
al. further asserted that if such an analysis were to show that the 
intrastate market did not substantially affect the interstate market 
(and therefore was not properly the subject of Federal regulation), DOE 
must redo its cost-benefit analysis since the standards would apply to 
a more limited set of products--those traveling interstate. (Id.) The 
AGs of LA et al. further commented that even if DOE were to find that 
intrastate commerce in gas cooking products substantially affects 
interstate commerce, DOE should still exclude purely intrastate 
activities from any promulgated standard because the original 
understanding of the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power 
to regulate activities that ``substantially affect'' interstate 
commerce. (Id.) In summary, the AGs of LA et al. asserted that DOE must 
exclude all intrastate activity from the proposed standards even if 
such activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce in 
covered cooking products. (Id.)
    In response, DOE notes that it has clear authority under EPCA to 
regulate the energy use of a variety of consumer products and certain 
commercial and industrial equipment, including the subject consumer 
conventional cooking products. See 42 U.S.C. 6295. The scope of the new 
and amended standards adopted in this direct final rule properly 
includes all consumer conventional cooking products distributed in 
commerce for personal use or consumption because intrastate State 
activity involving a fungible commodity for which there is an 
established market, such as consumer conventional cooking products 
substantially affects interstate commerce. Furthermore, binding Supreme 
Court precedent contravenes the AGs of LA et al.'s arguments relating 
to the original understanding of the Commerce Clause. See e.g., 
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). As the Court noted in Raich, the 
Commerce Clause case law ``firmly establishes Congress' power to 
regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic `class of 
activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.'' 
Id. at 17. The Court concluded that to leave intrastate goods 
unregulated where there is an established interstate market for the 
commodity would have a substantial impact on the market and could 
undermine the very purpose of the regulatory scheme. See Id. at 18-19. 
Such would be the case here. DOE therefore affirms its view that 
Congress' intent in EPCA was to provide it with authority to regulate 
all consumer conventional cooking products distributed in commerce. 
Indeed, based on its statutory authority in EPCA, DOE has a long-
standing practice of issuing energy conservation standards with the 
same scope as the standard in this direct final rule. For example, DOE 
has maintained a similar scope of products in the April 2009 Final Rule 
that established the current standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products (74 FR 16040), and in the September 1998 Final Rule 
establishing the preceding set of standards for these products (63 FR 
48038). As such, DOE disagrees with the AGs of LA et al.'s contention 
that the Commerce Clause limits DOE's clear and long-standing authority 
under EPCA to adopt the standard, including its scope, presented in 
this direct final rule. A further discussion regarding federalism 
concerns can be found at section VI.E of this document.
2. Fuel Neutrality Under EPCA
    Gas Analytics & Advocacy Services, LLC (``GAAS'') commented that 
Congress has made it clear that fuel neutrality be strictly adhered to 
with respect to energy conservation standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products, despite electrification being a cornerstone of the 
Biden Administration's energy and environmental policies. (GAAS, No. 
2271 at p. 3)
    AHAM commented that disparate treatment of gas and electric cooking 
tops based on fuel source is not appropriate and that energy 
conservation standards should be fuel neutral. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 4)
    In response, DOE first notes that the only requirement related to 
fuel neutrality in EPCA is that DOE establish separate product classes 
and standards based on the kind of energy, i.e., fuel, consumed. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A)) And while this requirement is not applicable to 
direct final rules issued under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE notes that 
the recommended standards in the Joint Agreement are divided into 
product classes based on fuel type.
3. National Academy of Sciences Report
    The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 
(``NAS'') periodically appoint a committee to peer review the 
assumptions, models, and methodologies that DOE uses in setting energy 
conservation standards for covered products and equipment. The most 
recent such peer review was conducted in a series of meetings in 2020, 
and NAS issued the report \133\ in 2021 detailing its findings and 
recommendations on how DOE can improve its analyses and align them with 
best practices for cost-benefit analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 
2021. Review of Methods Used by the U.S. Department of Energy in 
Setting Appliance and Equipment Standards. Washington, DC: The 
National Academies Press. Available at doi.org/10.17226/25992 (last 
accessed August 2, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AGA commented that DOE should follow, or at least respond, to 
recommendations in the NAS report, specifically: appliance standards 
should be economically justified or based on significant failures of 
private markets or irrational consumer behavior (Recommendation 2-2); 
the Cost Analysis segment of the Engineering Analysis should be 
expanded to include ranges of costs, patterns of consumption, diversity 
factors, energy peak demand, and variance regarding environmental 
factors (Recommendation 3-5); DOE should put greater weight on ex post 
and market-based evidence of markups to project a more realistic range 
of effects of a standard on prices (Recommendation 4-1); DOE should 
place greater emphasis on providing an argument for the plausibility 
and magnitude of any market failure related to the energy efficiency 
gap in its analyses (Recommendation 4-13); and DOE should give greater 
attention to a broader set of potential market failures on the supply 
side, including how standards might reduce the number of competing 
firms, and also how standards might impact price discrimination, 
technological diffusion, and collusion (Recommendation 4-14). (AGA, No. 
2279 at pp. 18-20) AGA commented that DOE has not addressed the NAS 
recommendations in the February 2023 SNOPR and should revise the 
proposed rule and allow stakeholders an opportunity to comment. (Id.)
    AHAM stated that it has continually commented that DOE should 
review the NAS report and provide notice and an opportunity to comment 
on whether and how DOE will incorporate the recommendations in that 
report in its analysis repeated its request of several years that DOE 
review the NAS report and provide notice and opportunity to comment on 
whether and how DOE will incorporate into its analysis the 
recommendations in that report. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 47-49) AHAM 
asserted commented that DOE cannot continue to perpetuate what AHAM 
asserted to be the errors in its analytical

[[Page 11505]]

approach that have been pointed out by stakeholders and the NAS report. 
(Id.)
    AHAM commented that DOE has not assessed the utility of consumer-
valued features that would be redesigned and eliminated under the 
standards. (AHAM, No. 10116 at p. 24) AHAM commented that, per OMB 
Circular A-4, DOE should perform an analysis of the consumer utility of 
specific features and performance that recognizes the opportunity cost 
to choose a feature or performance attribute. (Id.) AHAM commented that 
NAS recommends that DOE should collect data on consumer choices in 
appliance markets and estimate a discrete choice model of consumer 
behavior to quantify the trade-offs that consumers face from changes in 
appliance performance. (Id.) AHAM further commented that per NAS, DOE 
should assess consumer utility of features prior to establishing any 
standard where such features are required by law to be preserved. (Id.) 
AHAM commented that DOE's only technology option for improving 
efficiency of gas cooking tops eliminates consumer-valued features and 
performance. (Id.)
    GAAS commented that DOE has not considered the NAS report's 
recommendation regarding methodologies to simultaneously improve and 
simplify economics analyses via the use of consumer marginal energy 
rates. (GAAS, No. 10107 at p. 4)
    As discussed, the rulemaking process for establishing new or 
amended standards for covered products and equipment are specified at 
appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430, and DOE periodically 
examines and revises these provisions in separate rulemaking 
proceedings. The recommendations in the NAS report, which pertain to 
the processes by which DOE analyzes energy conservation standards, will 
be considered by DOE in a separate rulemaking process.

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for 
consumer conventional cooking products. It addresses the TSLs examined 
by DOE, the projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as 
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products, and the standards levels that DOE is adopting in this direct 
final rule. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained 
in the direct final rule TSD supporting this document.

A. Trial Standard Levels

    In general, DOE typically evaluates potential new or amended 
standards for products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency 
levels for each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and 
consider manufacturer cost interactions between the product classes, to 
the extent that there are such interactions, and price elasticity of 
consumer purchasing decisions that may change when different standard 
levels are set.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE defined the TSLs presented in Table 
V.1 and Table V.2. 88 FR 6818, 6870.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.041

    The CA IOUs commented that they recommend DOE create a TSL 2.5 that 
is identical to February 2023 SNOPR TSL 2 except that it incorporates 
EL 2 (instead of EL 1) for electric smooth element cooking tops because 
EL 2 is highly cost-effective and would improve the efficiency of a 
larger portion of cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No. 2278 at p. 4) The CA IOUs 
noted that 80 percent of these cooking tops already meet EL 1, while 30 
percent meet EL 2 and above. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that EL 2 is 
based on the lowest measured AEC for radiant cooking tops in the test 
sample, with the same ETLP as EL 1, yet five of the 11 
tested smooth electric resistant cooking tops have an AEC of 189 kWh/
year or below and could meet an IAEC of 189 kWh/year by making 
improvements in standby mode power use (which the CA IOUs noted was 
cited by DOE as the technology option for EL 1). (Id.) Additionally, 
the CA IOUs commented that eight of the nine smooth-induction cooking 
tops have an AEC of 189 kWh/year or less and stated that most induction 
cooking tops should meet this efficiency level through energy use 
improvements in standby power mode. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that 
adopting EL 2 for electric smooth element cooking tops

[[Page 11506]]

will not require higher conversion costs for many electric smooth 
element cooking tops. (Id.)
    NPGA commented that the proposed TSL mapping that does not include 
significant efficiency improvements for electric smooth element cooking 
tops until TSL 3 is arbitrary and inconsistent across fuel types. 
(NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 5)
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products, including consumer conventional 
cooking products. When considering energy conservation standards for 
consumer conventional cooking products, the standards 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 this assessment, DOE considers 
seven statutory factors, which include consideration of the economic 
impacts on manufacturers and consumers, as well as energy savings and 
the need for national energy conservation. In this direct final rule, 
DOE has modified TSL 2 to analyze the impacts of a standard set at EL 2 
for all product classes, including electric smooth element cooking 
tops, as suggested by the CA IOUs and NGPA. Section V.C of this 
document includes a summary of the benefits and burdens of TSLs 
considered for consumer conventional cooking products.
    ONE Gas commented that TSLs should be analyzed independently across 
design options and not among groupings of technology options. (ONE Gas, 
No. 2289 at p. 15; ONE Gas, No. 10109 at p. 4)
    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 and provides a comparative analysis 
of each design option in section V.C.1 of this document.
    NPGA commented that the statement in the February 2023 SNOPR that 
``DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels that are higher or lower than 
the proposed standards'' is misleading. (NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 2) NPGA 
commented that DOE's decision to incorporate max-tech standards for gas 
cooking tops means that the adopted energy efficiency levels cannot be 
higher than the proposed standards, pursuant to EPCA. (Id.)
    DOE's statement in the February 2023 SNOPR is intended to apply 
across all product classes and not necessarily to each individual 
product class.
    In the analysis conducted for this direct final rule, DOE analyzed 
the benefits and burdens of three TSLs for consumer conventional 
cooking products. DOE developed TSLs that combine efficiency levels for 
each analyzed product class. TSL 3 represents the maximum 
technologically feasible (max-tech) energy efficiency for all product 
classes. TSL 2 represents an intermediate TSL. TSL 1--which corresponds 
to the Recommended TSL in the Joint Agreement--corresponds to the 
minimum efficiency improvement in each product class corresponding to 
electronic controls for electric smooth element cooking tops, optimized 
burners for gas cooking tops, and SMPSs for ovens. DOE presents the 
results for the TSLs in this document, while the results for all 
efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in the direct final rule TSD. 
While not all ELs were included among the defined TSLs, DOE considered 
all efficiency levels as part of its analysis.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this direct final 
rule are discussed in section IV.C.1 of this document. Results by 
efficiency level are presented in chapter 8 of the direct final rule 
TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table V.3 and Table V.4 present the TSLs and the corresponding 
efficiency levels and potential prescriptive standards that DOE has 
identified for potential new and amended energy conservation standards 
for consumer conventional cooking products, consistent with those 
analyzed in the February 2023 SNOPR. As discussed in section IV.A.2.a 
of this document, DOE did not evaluate electric open (coil) element 
cooking tops as part of the efficiency analysis for this direct final 
rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.043


[[Page 11507]]



B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    DOE analyzed the economic impacts on consumer conventional cooking 
products consumers by looking at the effects that potential new and 
amended standards at each TSL would have on the LCC and PBP. DOE also 
examined the impacts of potential standards on selected consumer 
subgroups. These analyses are discussed in the following sections.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two 
ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs 
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total 
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and 
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price 
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also 
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the direct 
final rule TSD provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP 
analyses.
    Table V.5 through Table V.16 show the LCC and PBP results for the 
TSLs considered for each product class in the compliance year for that 
TSL. All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year 
of 2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 2028. In the first of each pair 
of tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline 
product. In the second table, the impacts are measured relative to the 
efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in the compliance 
year (see section IV.F.8 of this document). Because some consumers 
purchase products with higher efficiency in the no-new-standards case, 
the average savings are less than the difference between the average 
LCC of the baseline product and the average LCC at each TSL. The 
savings refer only to consumers who are affected by a standard at a 
given TSL. Those who already purchase a product with efficiency at or 
above a given TSL are not affected. Consumers for whom the LCC 
increases at a given TSL experience a net cost.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.045


[[Page 11508]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.049


[[Page 11509]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.053


[[Page 11510]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.055

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the 
considered TSLs on low-income households and senior-only households. 
Table V.17 through Table V.22 compare the average LCC savings and PBP 
at each efficiency level for the consumer subgroups with similar 
metrics for the entire consumer sample for each product class of 
consumer cooking products. In most cases, the average LCC savings and 
PBP for senior-only households at the considered efficiency levels are 
not substantially different from the average for all households. Low-
income households have higher LCC savings and lower payback periods 
relative to the results for all households. Consumers not impacted by 
the TSL are composed of the remaining consumers that neither experience 
a net benefit or a net cost. Chapter 11 of the direct final rule TSD 
presents the complete LCC and PBP results for the subgroups.

[[Page 11511]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.057


[[Page 11512]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.059


[[Page 11513]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.061

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    As discussed in section III.E.2 of this document, EPCA establishes 
a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product 
that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the 
first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a 
rebuttable presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs, 
DOE used discrete

[[Page 11514]]

values and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use calculation on 
the DOE test procedures for consumer conventional cooking products. In 
contrast, the PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a of this document were 
calculated using distributions that reflect the range of energy use in 
the field.
    Table V.23 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for 
the considered TSLs for consumer conventional cooking products. While 
DOE examined the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it considered 
whether the standard levels considered for this rule are economically 
justified through a more detailed analysis of the economic impacts of 
those levels, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers 
the full range of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and 
environment. The results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 
definitively evaluate the economic justification for a potential 
standard level, thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any 
preliminary determination of economic justification.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.062

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of new and amended 
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of consumer conventional 
cooking products. The next section describes the expected impacts on 
manufacturers at each considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the direct final 
rule TSD explains the analysis in further detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which 
examines changes in the industry that would result from the analyzed 
energy conservation standards. The following tables summarize the 
estimated financial impacts (represented by changes in INPV) of 
potential new and amended energy conservation standards on 
manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products, as well as the 
conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers of consumer 
conventional cooking products would incur at each TSL. To evaluate the 
range of cash flow impacts on the consumer conventional cooking product 
industry, DOE modeled two scenarios using different assumptions that 
correspond to the range of anticipated market responses to new and 
amended energy conservation standards: (1) the preservation of gross 
margin scenario and (2) the preservation of operating profit scenario, 
as previously described in section IV.J.2.d of this document.
    Each of the modeled scenarios results in a unique set of cash flows 
and corresponding INPV for each TSL. INPV is the sum of the discounted 
cash flows to the industry from the base year (2024) through the end of 
the analysis period (30 years from the analyzed compliance year). The 
``change in INPV'' results refer to the difference in industry value 
between the no-new-standards case and standards case at each TSL. To 
provide perspective on the short-run cash flow impact, DOE includes a 
comparison of free cash flow between the no-new-standards case and the 
standards case at each TSL in the year before new and amended standards 
would take effect. This figure provides an understanding of the 
magnitude of the required conversion costs relative to the cash flow 
generated by the industry in the no-new-standards case.
    DOE presents the range in INPV for consumer conventional cooking 
product manufacturers in Table V.24 and Table V.25. DOE presents the 
impacts to industry cash flows and the conversion costs in Table V.26.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.063


[[Page 11515]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.065

    At TSL 3, DOE estimates the change in INPV will range from -$1,903 
million to -$1,626 million, which represents a change in INPV of -118.9 
percent to -101.6 percent, respectively. At TSL 3, industry free cash 
flow decreases to -$763.7 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 670.6 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case 
value of $133.8 million in 2026, the year before the compliance date.
    TSL 3 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 2 for the 
gas cooking top product classes (standalone and component of a combined 
cooking product) and for the gas oven product class and at EL 3 for the 
electric smooth element cooking top product classes (standalone and 
component of a combined cooking product) and for the electric oven 
product class. This represents max-tech for all product classes. DOE 
estimates that less than 1 percent of electric smooth element cooking 
top shipments (standalone and component of a combined cooking product), 
41 percent of gas cooking top shipments (standalone and component of a 
combined cooking product), there are no electric standard oven 
(freestanding and built-in) shipments, there are no electric self-clean 
oven (freestanding) shipments, 2 percent of electric self-clean (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 (built-in) shipments would already meet the 
efficiency levels required at TSL 3 in 2027.
    At TSL 3, DOE expects consumer conventional cooking product 
manufacturers to incur approximately $1,593.5 million in product 
conversion costs. This includes testing costs and product redesign 
costs. At TSL 3, electric smooth element cooking top manufacturers 
would have to completely redesign most of their electric smooth element 
cooking top models to use induction technology. Electric oven 
manufacturers would have to completely redesign almost all their 
electric oven models to use oven separators. Additionally, consumer 
conventional cooking product manufacturers would incur approximately 
$475.7 million in capital conversion costs to purchase new tooling and 
equipment necessary to produce the numerous redesigned cooking top and 
oven models at TSL 3.
    At TSL 3, the shipment weighted average MPC for consumer 
conventional cooking products significantly increases by 22.3 percent 
relative to the no-new-standards case shipment weighted average MPC in 
2027. In the preservation of gross margin scenario, manufacturers can 
fully pass along this cost increase, which causes an increase in 
manufacturers' free cash flow. However, the $2,069.2 million in 
conversion costs estimated at TSL 3, ultimately results in a 
significantly negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation 
of gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers 
earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-
new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit 
from their investments or higher MPCs. In this scenario, the 22.3 
percent increase in the shipment weighted average MPC results in a 
reduction in the margin after the compliance year. This reduction in 
the margin and the $2,069.2 million in conversion costs incurred by 
manufacturers causes a significantly negative change in INPV at TSL 3 
under the preservation of operating profit scenario.

[[Page 11516]]

    At TSL 2, DOE estimates the change in INPV will range from -$559 
million to -$522 million, which represents a change in INPV of -34.9 
percent to -32.6 percent, respectively. At TSL 2, industry free cash 
flow decreases to -$94.0 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 170.2 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case 
value of $133.8 million in 2026, the year before the compliance date.
    TSL 2 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 2 for all 
product classes. DOE estimates that 15 percent of electric smooth 
element cooking top shipments (standalone and component of a combined 
cooking product), 41 percent of gas cooking top shipments (standalone 
and component of a combined cooking product), 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 (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 (built-in) shipments would already meet the efficiency levels 
required at TSL 2 in 2027.
    At TSL 2, DOE expects consumer conventional cooking product 
manufacturers to incur approximately $334.0 million in product 
conversion costs. This includes testing costs and product redesign 
costs. Additionally, consumer conventional cooking product 
manufacturers would incur approximately $242.5 million in capital 
conversion costs to purchase new tooling and equipment necessary to 
produce all electric smooth element cooking top models and all oven 
models to use SMPSs and to purchase new molds for grates and burners 
for gas cooking top models that would not meet this energy conservation 
standard.
    At TSL 2, the shipment weighted average MPC for consumer 
conventional cooking products slightly increases by 3.1 percent 
relative to the no-new-standards case shipment weighted average MPC in 
2027. In the preservation of gross margin scenario, manufacturers can 
fully pass on this cost increase, which causes an increase in 
manufacturers' free cash flow. However, the $576.5 million in 
conversion costs estimated at TSL 2, ultimately results in a 
significantly negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under the preservation 
of gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the 3.1 
percent increase in the shipment weighted average MPC results in a 
reduction in the margin after the compliance year. This reduction in 
the margin and the $576.5 million in conversion costs incurred by 
manufacturers causes a significantly negative change in INPV at TSL 2 
under the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 1 (i.e., the Recommended TSL), DOE estimates the change in 
INPV will range from -$144 million to -$143 million, which represents a 
change of -9.0 percent. At TSL 1, industry free cash flow decreases to 
$100.6 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 21.8 
percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $128.7 million 
in 2027, the year before the compliance date.
    TSL 1 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 1 for all 
product classes. DOE estimates that 77 percent of all electric smooth 
element cooking top shipments, 97 percent of all gas cooking top 
shipments, 95 percent of all electric oven shipments, and 96 percent of 
all gas oven shipments would already meet or exceed the efficiency 
levels required at TSL 1 in 2028.
    At TSL 1, DOE expects consumer conventional cooking product 
manufacturers to incur approximately $19.9 million in product 
conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant cooking top models and 
oven models, as well as to test all (both compliant and newly 
redesigned) cooking top models to DOE's cooking top test procedure. 
Additionally, consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers would 
incur approximately $46.8 million in capital conversion costs to 
purchase new tooling and equipment necessary to produce all electric 
smooth element cooking top models and all oven models to use SMPSs and 
to purchase new molds for grates and burners for gas cooking top models 
that would not meet this energy conservation standard.
    At TSL 1, the shipment weighted average MPC for consumer 
conventional cooking products slightly increases by 0.1 percent 
relative to the no-new-standards case shipment weighted average MPC in 
2028. In the preservation of gross margin scenario, manufacturers can 
fully pass on this slight cost increase, which causes an increase in 
manufacturers' free cash flow. However, the $66.7 million in conversion 
costs estimated at TSL 1, ultimately results in a slightly negative 
change in INPV at TSL 1 under the preservation of gross margin 
scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the 0.1 
percent increase in the shipment weighted average MPC results in a 
reduction in the margin after the compliance year. This reduction in 
the margin and the $66.7 million in conversion costs incurred by 
manufacturers causes a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under 
the preservation of operating profit scenario.
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    To quantitatively assess the potential impacts of new and amended 
energy conservation standards on direct employment in the consumer 
conventional cooking products industry, DOE used the GRIM to estimate 
the domestic labor expenditures and number of direct employees in the 
no-new-standards case and in each of the standards cases (i.e., TSLs) 
during the analysis period.
    Production employees are those who are directly involved in 
fabricating and assembling products within a manufacturer's facility. 
Workers performing services that are closely associated with production 
operations, such as materials handling tasks using forklifts, are 
included as production labor, as well as line supervisors.
    DOE used the GRIM to calculate the number of production employees 
from labor expenditures. DOE used statistical data from the U.S. Census 
Bureau's 2021 Annual Survey of Manufacturers (``ASM'') and the results 
of the engineering analysis to calculate industry-wide labor 
expenditures. Labor expenditures related to product manufacturing 
depend on the labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, and an 
assumption that wages remain fixed in real terms over time. The total 
labor expenditures in the GRIM were then converted to domestic 
production employment levels by dividing production labor expenditures 
by the annual payment per production worker.
    Non-production employees account for those workers that are not 
directly engaged in the manufacturing of the covered products. This 
could include sales, human resources, engineering, and management. DOE 
estimated non-production employment levels by multiplying the number of 
consumer conventional cooking product workers by a scaling factor. The 
scaling factor is calculated by taking the ratio of the total number of 
employees, and the total production workers associated with the 
industry NAICS code 335220, which covers consumer conventional cooking 
product manufacturing.
    The employment impacts shown in Table V.27 represent the potential 
domestic production employment that

[[Page 11517]]

could result following the analyzed new and amended energy conservation 
standards. The upper bound of the results estimates the maximum change 
in the number of production workers that could occur after compliance 
with new and amended energy conservation standards when assuming that 
manufacturers continue to produce the same scope of covered products in 
the same production facilities. It also assumes that domestic 
production does not shift to lower labor-cost countries. Because there 
is a risk of manufacturers evaluating sourcing decisions in response to 
new and amended energy conservation standards, the lower bound of the 
employment results includes DOE's estimate of the total number of U.S. 
production workers in the industry who could lose their jobs if some 
existing domestic production was moved outside of the United States. 
While the results present a range of domestic employment impacts 
following 2027 or 2028 (depending on the TSL being analyzed), the 
following sections also include qualitative discussions of the 
likelihood of negative employment impacts at the various TSLs.
    Using 2021 ASM data and interviews with manufacturers, DOE 
estimates that approximately 60 percent of the consumer conventional 
cooking products sold in the United States are manufactured 
domestically. With this assumption, DOE estimates that in the absence 
of new and amended energy conservation standards, there would be 
approximately 4,208 domestic production workers involved in 
manufacturing consumer conventional cooking products in 2027. Table 
V.27 shows the range of the impacts of the analyzed new and amended 
energy conservation standards on U.S. production workers in the 
consumer conventional cooking product industry.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.066

    At the upper end of the range, all examined TSLs show an increase 
in the number of domestic production workers for consumer conventional 
cooking products. The upper end of the range represents a scenario 
where manufacturers increase production hiring due to the increase in 
the labor associated with adding the required components to make 
consumer conventional cooking products more efficient. However, as 
previously stated, this assumes that in addition to hiring more 
production employees, all existing domestic production would remain in 
the United States and not shift to lower labor-cost countries.
    At the lower end of the range, all examined TSLs show either no 
change in domestic production employment or a decrease in domestic 
production employment. The lower end of the domestic employment range 
assumes that gas cooking top domestic production employment does not 
change at any TSL. Manufacturing more efficient gas cooking tops by 
optimizing the burner and improving grates would not impact the 
location where production occurs for these product classes. 
Additionally, this lower range assumes that at TSL 1, the Recommended 
TSL, which sets all oven product classes and all electric smooth 
element cooking top product classes at EL 1, domestic production 
employment would not change. EL 1 would require SMPSs for all oven 
product classes and can be achieved using low-standby-loss electronic 
controls for the electric smooth element cooking top product classes. 
The majority of manufacturers already use SMPSs in their ovens and are 
able to meet the efficiency requirements at EL 1 for the electric 
smooth element cooking top product classes using purchased components. 
Adding these standby features to models currently not using these 
features would not change the location where production occurs for 
these product classes.
    At the lower end of the range for TSL 2, DOE estimated that up to 
25 percent of the domestic employment for the electric smooth element 
cooking top product classes could be relocated abroad at EL 2. 
Additionally, DOE estimated that up to 25 percent of domestic 
production employment for the oven product classes could be relocated 
abroad at TSL 2. DOE estimates that there would be approximately 736 
domestic production employees involved in the production of electric 
smooth element cooking tops and 3,020 domestic production employees 
involved in the production covering all oven product classes in 2027 in 
the no-new-standards case. Using these values to estimate the lower end 
of the range, DOE estimated that up to 939 domestic production 
employees could be eliminated at TSL 2 (due to standards being set at 
EL 2 for all electric smooth element cooking top product classes and 
for all oven product classes).\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ 736 x 25% + 3,020 x 25% = 939
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the lower end of the range for TSL 3, DOE estimated that up to 
50 percent of domestic production employment for the electric smooth 
element cooking top product classes could be relocated abroad at max-
tech. Additionally, DOE estimated that up to 25 percent of domestic 
production employment for

[[Page 11518]]

the oven product classes could be relocated abroad at TSL 3. DOE 
estimates that there would be approximately 736 domestic production 
employees involved in the production of electric smooth element cooking 
tops and 3,020 domestic production employees involved in the production 
covering all oven product classes in 2027 in the no-new-standards case. 
Using these values to estimate the lower end of the range, DOE 
estimated that up to 1,123 domestic production employees could be 
eliminated at TSL 3 (due to standards being set at max-tech for all 
electric smooth element cooking top product classes and for all oven 
product classes).\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ 736 x 50% + 3,020 x 25% = 1,123
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE provides a range of potential impacts to domestic production 
employment as each manufacturer would make a business decision that 
best suits their individual product needs. However, manufacturers 
stated during interviews that due to the larger size of most consumer 
conventional cooking products, there are few units that are 
manufactured and shipped from far distances such as Asia or Europe. The 
vast majority of consumer conventional cooking products are currently 
made in North America. Some manufacturers stated that even significant 
changes to production lines would not cause them to shift their 
production abroad, as several manufacturers either only produce 
consumer conventional cooking products domestically or have made 
significant investments to continue to produce consumer conventional 
cooking products domestically.
    In response to the energy conservation standard proposed in the 
February 2023 SNOPR for gas cooking tops, Sub-Zero Group commented that 
any standard that would force its Wolf brand to remove consumer-desired 
features from their gas cooking tops would jeopardize its ability to 
maintain market share and negatively impact its employees represented 
by SMART Union International. (Sub-Zero Group, No. 767 at p. 3; Sub-
Zero Group, No. 2140 at p. 6)
    As discussed in section IV.C.1.a of this document, DOE updated the 
efficiency levels for gas cooking tops for this direct final rule 
analysis. With the updates to the efficiency levels for gas cooking 
tops that were made for this direct final rule analysis, DOE estimates 
that domestic production employment would not change significantly at 
TSL 1, but could be reduced by up to 939 domestic employees at TSL 2 
and by up to 1,123 domestic employees at TSL 3 as displayed in the 
lower bound for Table V.27.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    Manufacturers stated that any standard requiring induction heating 
technology for electric smooth element cooking tops would be very 
difficult to meet since there are less than 1 percent of shipments 
currently using this technology. Additionally, any standards requiring 
oven separators for the electric oven product class would be very 
difficult to meet since that would require completely redesigning the 
oven cavity of almost every electric oven model currently on the 
market.
    AGA commented that designers and manufacturers of gas cooking tops 
are likely to leave the market rather than spend the millions of 
dollars required to redesign their products to comply with the February 
2023 SNOPR. (AGA, No. 2279 at p. 22)
    NPGA stated that DOE's proposed standard in the February 2023 SNOPR 
for gas cooking tops will pose a substantial difficulty for 
manufacturers and upheaval in the market. (NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 9) NPGA 
stated that even if DOE is correct in asserting the proposed standard's 
technical feasibility and economic justification, 96 percent of the gas 
cooking tops tested by DOE were not in compliance with the proposal 
intended to be in effect by 2027. (Id.) Additionally, NPGA stated that 
it is more likely that manufacturers will choose to leave the market 
rather than spend the millions of dollars it will take to redesign 
their products to be in compliance with the proposed standards. (Id.)
    Whirlpool commented that it and other multi-brand companies 
differentiate their products on the basis of price, new features, 
improved customer experience, and improved energy efficiency. 
(Whirlpool, No. 2284 at pp. 4-8) Whirlpool commented that standards 
proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR for gas cooking tops will limit the 
variety of cooking tops available on the market and functionally phase 
out product features that manufacturers use to differentiate between 
models and brands (e.g., grates and burners), and that without these 
features, Whirlpool and other manufacturers will lack the ability to 
meaningfully differentiate between products in their own product lines 
and those of their competitors. (Id.) Whirlpool commented that the 
standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR for gas cooking tops also 
threaten the ability of smaller companies to compete in the market, 
resulting in reduced consumer choice, less innovation, and industry 
consolidation as manufacturers lose the ability to add new features or 
improve consumer experience as readily within the confines of the 
standards. (Id.) Whirlpool added that DOE fails to account for the 
decreased competition that will likely result from this rulemaking. 
(Id.) Additionally, Whirlpool commented that DOE's February 2023 SNOPR 
analysis fails to consider the likely diminution in market competition, 
product utility, and product performance of gas cooking products, as 
well as the likely wholesale removal of certain products and features 
from the market, resulting from the standard proposed in the February 
2023 SNOPR for gas cooking tops. (Id.) Whirlpool recommended that DOE 
account for whether the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 
for gas cooking tops will reduce competition and increase 
consolidation. (Id.) ONE Gas stated that manufacturers would likely 
choose to leave the market rather than expend the millions of dollars 
to redesign their products in order to comply, unreasonably eliminating 
competition and resulting in enormous market upheaval. (ONE Gas, No. 
2289 at pp. 3-4)
    Based on comments received in response to the February 2023 SNOPR, 
DOE further examined the potential impacts of the gas cooking top 
market in this direct final rule analysis and agrees that some gas 
cooking top manufacturers might not be willing to make the investments 
required to comply with the max-tech gas cooking top efficiency level 
that was proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR and the max-tech gas 
cooking top efficiency level analyzed in this direct final rule 
analysis. If energy conservation standards are set at max-tech for gas 
cooking tops, it could result in some gas cooking top manufacturers 
leaving the gas cooking top market (either by exclusively manufacturing 
electric cooking tops or exiting the cooking top market all together). 
However, DOE notes that 97 percent of gas cooking top shipments on the 
market today would meet EL 1 for the gas cooking tops product classes, 
which DOE is finalizing in this rulemaking. Therefore, DOE does not 
anticipate that adopting energy conservation standards at EL 1 for the 
gas cooking tops product classes would cause any manufacturer to exit 
the gas cooking top market and all manufacturers would be able to 
continue to differentiate their products based on features other than 
energy efficiency.
    As discussed in section IV.C.1 of this document, DOE updated the 
efficiency levels for gas cooking tops for this direct

[[Page 11519]]

final rule. Based on the updated efficiency levels for gas cooking 
tops, DOE estimates that approximately 41 percent of gas cooking 
shipments would meet the efficiency requirements at max-tech. Based on 
DOE's further analysis, including the updated efficiency levels for gas 
cooking tops for this direct final rule, DOE understands that there is 
a risk that some manufacturers might not be willing or able to make the 
investments required to comply with standards for gas cooking tops if 
standards are set at max-tech for gas cooking tops. DOE notes that 97 
percent of gas cooking top shipments on the market today would meet EL 
1 for the gas cooking tops product classes, which DOE is finalizing in 
this rulemaking.
    Other than the max-tech ELs for the electric cooking top product 
classes and the gas cooking top product classes, all other ELs require 
making incremental improvements to existing designs and should not 
present any manufacturing capacity constraints given a compliance 
period of 3 or more years (depending on the TSL analyzed).
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash flow 
estimate may not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among 
manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche product 
manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting cost structures 
substantially different from the industry average could be affected 
disproportionately. DOE analyzed the impacts on small businesses in a 
separate analysis for the standards proposed in the NOPR published 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register and in chapter 12 of the direct 
final rule TSD. DOE also identified the premium product manufacturer 
subgroup as a potential manufacturer subgroup that could be adversely 
impacted by energy conservation standards based on the results of the 
industry characterization.
    The premium product manufacturer subgroup consists of consumer 
conventional cooking product manufacturers that primarily sell gas 
cooking tops, gas ovens, and electric self-clean ovens marketed as 
premium or professional style, either as a standalone product or as a 
component of a combined cooking product. These products are typically 
significantly more expensive than the market average costs. For the 
cooking top product classes, some premium product manufacturers do 
manufacture electric smooth element cooking tops. Of the premium 
product manufacturers that manufacture electric smooth element cooking 
tops, all have products that use induction technology and would be able 
to meet the max-tech efficiency level for these product classes.
    Premium product manufacturers would likely face more difficulty 
meeting potential standards set for the gas cooking top product classes 
than other consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers. 
However, as previously stated in section IV.C.1.a of this document, all 
analyzed efficiency levels for the gas cooking top product classes are 
achievable with multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates. 
Therefore, while premium product manufacturers would likely have to 
redesign a higher portion of their gas cooking top models compared to 
other consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers, all 
efficiency levels for the gas cooking top product classes are 
achievable for premium product manufacturers.
    For the oven product classes, the vast majority of premium product 
electric and gas ovens already use SMPSs in their ovens and would not 
have difficulty meeting potential standard levels requiring SMPSs for 
any oven product classes. Additionally, premium product manufacturers 
typically have a higher percentage of gas oven models with convection 
mode capability compared to other consumer conventional cooking product 
manufacturers. However, like the rest of the market, there are very 
few, if any, premium product electric ovens equipped with an oven 
separator, and it would be difficult for premium product manufacturers 
to convert all their oven cavities into ovens equipped with oven 
separators.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the regulatory actions 
of other Federal agencies and States that affect the manufacturers of a 
covered product or equipment. While any one regulation may not impose a 
significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of several 
existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences for 
some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. 
Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits 
and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower 
expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE 
conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its 
rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.
    DOE evaluates product-specific regulations that will take effect 
approximately 3 years before or after the 2028 compliance date of the 
new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products. This information is presented in Table V.28.

[[Page 11520]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.067


[[Page 11521]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.068

    AHAM commented that DOE should abide by Process Rule requirements 
and take action to fully review the cumulative impacts its rules will 
have on manufacturers and consumers, with this review including 
examination of the potential impact on the economy and inflation as a 
result of the unprecedented stringency and close compliance dates of 
DOE's recently proposed standards. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 44-47) AHAM 
commented that DOE's proposed levels for consumer clothes dryers, 
residential clothes washers, conventional cooking products, consumer 
refrigerator/freezers, and its final rule for room air conditioners 
will require significant redesign of products--and in the case of gas 
cooking tops and top-loading clothes washers, the complete redesign of 
entire product lines. (Id.) AHAM repeated its request that DOE 
acknowledge this cumulative regulatory burden and take action, such as 
spacing out its final rules, allowing more lead-time by issuing final 
rules well before publishing them in the Federal Register, and reducing 
the stringency of standards such that fewer percentages of products 
would require complete re-design. (Id.) AHAM cited the example of 
CPSC's investigation of IAQ and cooking, which will require potential 
redesign to meet any new NO2 requirements. (Id.) AHAM 
commented DOE's proposed rule for cooking tops should be combined with 
CPSC's IAQ effort into a single compliance date. (Id.) AHAM commented 
that Section 13(g) of the Process Rule provides specific actions DOE 
should take should there be cumulative impacts from other Federal 
regulatory action that DOE will recognize cumulative burden and ``seek 
to mitigate the overlapping effects on manufacturers of new or revised 
DOE standards and other regulatory actions affecting the same products 
or equipment.'' (Id.) AHAM noted that during the comment period for the 
February 2023 SNOPR, there were also rulemakings open for battery 
chargers, clothes washers, dishwashers, external power supplies, 
miscellaneous refrigeration products, refrigerator/freezers, and small 
electric motors, all of which impact AHAM's members. (Id.) AHAM 
commented that the Process Rule indicates if ``a proposed standard 
would impose a significant impact on product or equipment manufacturers 
within approximately 3 years of the compliance date of another DOE 
standard that imposes significant impacts on the same manufacturers (or 
divisions thereof, as appropriate), the Department will, in addition to 
evaluating the impact on manufacturers of the proposed standard, assess 
the joint impacts of both standards on manufacturers.'' (Id.) AHAM 
commented that the manufacturer impact analysis, as currently 
structured, does not adequately analyze the effects on an industry of 
multiple regulations within a short period and suggested adding the 
combined costs of complying with multiple regulations into the product 
conversion costs in GRIM as one potential solution DOE could take. 
(Id.)
    Regarding AHAM's suggestion about spacing out the timing of final 
rules for home appliance rulemakings to reduce regulatory burden, DOE 
has statutory requirements under EPCA on the timing of rulemakings. For 
consumer conventional cooking products; consumer clothes dryers; 
dishwashers; refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers; 
residential clothes washers; and room air conditioners, new and amended 
standards apply to covered products manufactured 3 years after the date 
on which any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) For miscellaneous refrigeration products, amended 
standards apply 5 years after the date on which any new or amended 
standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(2)) However, the multi-
product Joint Agreement recommends alternative compliance dates. As 
discussed in section II.B.4 of this document the Joint Agreement 
recommendations are in accordance with the statutory requirements of 42 
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a direct final rule. Therefore, 
as compared to the EPCA-required lead time of 3-years, consumer 
conventional cooking product manufacturers have more lead time to meet 
new and amended standards at the Recommend TSL.
    As shown in Table V.28, the ongoing rulemakings with the largest 
overlap of consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers include 
dishwashers; refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; 
residential clothes washers; clothes dryers; and miscellaneous

[[Page 11522]]

refrigeration products, which are all part of the multi-product Joint 
Agreement submitted by interested parties. As detailed in the Joint 
Agreement, the signatories indicated that their recommendations should 
be considered a ``complete package.'' The signatories further stated 
that ``each part of this agreement is contingent upon the other parts 
being implemented.'' (Joint Agreement, No. 505 at p. 3)
    The multi-product Joint Agreement states the ``jointly recommended 
compliance dates will achieve the overall energy and economic benefits 
of this agreement while allowing necessary lead-times for manufacturers 
to redesign products and retool manufacturing plants to meet the 
recommended standards across product categories.'' (Joint Agreement, 
No. 505 at p. 2) The staggered compliance dates help mitigate 
manufacturers' concerns about their ability to allocate sufficient 
resources to comply with multiple concurrent new and amended standards. 
See Table V.29 for a comparison of the estimated compliance dates based 
on EPCA-specified timelines and the compliance dates detailed in the 
Joint Agreement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.069

3. National Impact Analysis
    This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy 
savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of 
the TSLs considered as potential new or amended standards.
a. National Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential new or 
amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products, DOE 
compared their energy consumption under the no-new-standards case to 
their anticipated energy consumption under each TSL. The savings are 
measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year 
period that begins in the year of anticipated compliance with new and 
amended standards (2027-2056 for all TSLs other than TSL 1, the 
Recommended TSL; 2028-2057 for TSL 1). Table V.30 presents DOE's 
projections of the national energy savings for each TSL considered for 
consumer conventional cooking products. The savings were calculated 
using the approach described in section IV.H of this document.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.070

    OMB Circular A-4 \137\ requires agencies to present analytical 
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and 
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4 
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements 
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather than 30 
years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy 
for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation 
standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised 
standards.\138\ The review

[[Page 11523]]

timeframe established in EPCA is generally not synchronized with the 
product lifetime, product manufacturing cycles, or other factors 
specific to consumer conventional cooking products. Thus, such results 
are presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of 
any change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES sensitivity 
analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented in 
Table V.31. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of consumer 
conventional cooking products purchased during the period 2027-2035 for 
all TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028-2035 for TSL 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars (last accessed January 3, 2024). 
DOE used the prior version of Circular A-4 (September 17, 2003) in 
accordance with the effective date of the November 9, 2023, version.
    \138\ EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at least once 
every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 3-year period 
after any new standard is promulgated before compliance is required, 
except that in no case may any new standards be required within 6 
years of the compliance date of the previous standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)) While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 
period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews 
at any time within the 6-year period and that the 3-year compliance 
date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may 
not be appropriate given the variability that occurs in the timing 
of standards reviews and the fact that for some products, the 
compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.071

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for 
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for consumer 
conventional cooking products. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on 
regulatory analysis,\139\ DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and 
a 3-percent real discount rate. Table V.32 shows the consumer NPV 
results with impacts counted over the lifetime of products purchased 
during the period 2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended 
TSL); 2028-2057 for TSL 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars (last accessed January 3, 2024). 
DOE used the prior version of Circular A-4 (September 17, 2003) in 
accordance with the effective date of the November 9, 2023, version.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.072

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period are presented in Table V.33. The impacts are counted over the 
lifetime of products purchased during the period 2027-2035 for all TSLs 
other than TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028-2036 for TSL 1. As 
mentioned previously, such results are presented for informational 
purposes only and are not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical 
methodology or decision criteria.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.073

    The previous results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate 
the change in price for consumer conventional cooking products over the 
analysis period (see section IV.H.3 of this document). DOE also 
conducted a

[[Page 11524]]

sensitivity analysis that considered one scenario with a lower rate of 
price decline than the reference case and one scenario with a higher 
rate of price decline than the reference case. The results of these 
alternative cases are presented in appendix 10C of the direct final 
rule TSD. In the high-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer benefits 
is higher than in the default case. In the low-price-decline case, the 
NPV of consumer benefits is lower than in the default case.
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    DOE estimates that new and amended energy conservation standards 
for consumer conventional cooking products will reduce energy 
expenditures for consumers of those products, with the resulting net 
savings being redirected to other forms of economic activity. These 
expected shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the 
demand for labor. As described in section IV.N of this document, DOE 
used an input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect 
employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered. There are 
uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially 
changes in the later years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated 
results for near-term timeframes ((2027-2032) for all TSLs other than 
TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) and 2028 for TSL 1), where these 
uncertainties are reduced.
    The results suggest that the adopted standards are likely to have a 
negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net 
change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national 
labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on 
employment. Chapter 16 of the direct final rule TSD presents detailed 
results regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    As stated, EPCA, as codified, contains the provision that 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)) This provision is referred to by 
commenters as the ``unavailability provision'' or the ``features 
provision.''
    The Joint Agreement signatories \140\ stated that standards 
recommended in the Joint Agreement and adopted in this direct final 
rule are unlikely to result in the unavailability of covered products 
in the United States, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). (Joint 
Agreement signatories, No. 12814 at p. 8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ In Docket Item 12814, AHAM noted that it represents the 
following companies who manufacture residential 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This section summarizes the comments received in response to the 
gas cooking top standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR and the 
updated efficiency levels for gas cooking tops in the August 2023 NODA, 
regarding their impact on the utility of gas cooking tops.
a. General Comments
    ASAP et al. commented that the standards DOE proposed in the 
February 2023 SNOPR for gas cooking tops ensure that consumers will 
have access to the features generally available on the market today. 
(ASAP et al., No. 2273 at pp. 2-3) ASAP et al. commented that HIR 
burners allow consumers to perform high-heat cooking and that 
continuous cast-iron grates are useful for heavy pans or to easily 
shift cookware between burners. (Id.) ASAP et al. commented that DOE's 
decision to evaluate only models with at least one HIR burner and 
continuous cast-iron grates ensures that gas cooking top models with 
both features could comply with the proposed standard. (Id.) ASAP et 
al. commented that well-designed cooking tops can be both energy 
efficient and have multiple HIR burners. (Id.)
    The CA IOUs commented that DOE has provided sufficient evidence of 
the standard's technological feasibility across a range of gas cooking 
top types and has ensured that gas cooking tops with varying utilities, 
including those with at least one HIR burner and continuous cast-iron 
grates, can be more efficient and will have continued market 
availability. (CA IOUs, No. 2278 at pp. 2-3) The CA IOUs commented that 
the rulemaking record shows that the proposed standard will not reduce 
gas cooking top utility, will not negatively affect consumer choice, 
and will provide consumers with more efficient gas cooking tops. (Id.)
b. Market Availability
    Spire and AGA requested that, in any final rule, DOE include a 
provision stating that interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of evidence that the proposed standard is likely to 
result in the unavailability of products that are substantially the 
same as those currently generally available in the United States. 
(Spire, No. 2710 at p. 23; AGA, No. 2279 at p. 24)
    EPCA specifies that the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or 
new standard under this section if the Secretary finds (and publishes 
such finding) that 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 at the time of 
the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) DOE is publishing its 
analyses and findings in this direct final rule, including comments 
from interested parties, that demonstrate that the standards DOE is 
adopting fulfill this requirement.
    DOE notes that it estimates that the adopted standards will affect 
only 3 percent of gas cooking top shipments, which can be redesigned 
through technology options that maintain the performance 
characteristics of currently available models, thus not resulting in 
the unavailability of products that are substantially the same as those 
currently available in the United States.
    Spire commented that there is no basis to believe any of the gas 
cooking tops that DOE tested could be modified to meet the standard 
proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR without sacrificing their HIR 
burners and the more heavy-duty continuous cast-iron grates that 
provide the greatest utility for consumers, unless the product has only 
one HIR burner and relatively light cast-iron grates. (Spire, No. 2710 
at pp. 11-14) Spire commented that based on its analysis of DOE's test 
sample, the presence or absence of HIR burners is the only material 
determinant of whether products do or do not meet the standard proposed 
in the February 2023 SNOPR for gas cooking tops. (Id.)
    Whirlpool added that only a single model tested by DOE that meets 
the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR offers the key 
features that consumers expect from their gas cooking tops and ranges 
(i.e., HIR

[[Page 11525]]

burners and continuous cast-iron grates), and that three additional 
models were screened out of DOE's dataset because they did not offer 
these key features. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at pp. 9-10) Whirlpool 
commented that DOE has not identified a single model of gas cooking 
product with these common features that is currently on the market and 
can meet the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. (Id.)
    Sub-Zero commented that the Wolf SRT366 model, which is a very 
typical gas cooking top for the Wolf company, cannot meet the standard 
proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. (Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at pp. 8-9) 
Sub-Zero noted that this product has one burner with a 20,000 Btu/h 
input rate, two with 18,000 Btu/h, two with 15,000 Btu/h, and one with 
9,200 Btu/h. (Id.)
    IER asserted that DOE has not tested, nor has it disclosed to the 
public, a single gas cooking top that has HIR burners and continuous 
cast-iron grates, is available for purchase, and meets the standard 
proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. (IER, No. 2274 at pp. 4-5)
    IER commented that it disagrees with DOE's assertion that nearly 
half of the total gas cooking top market currently achieves the 
proposed EL 2 in the February 2023 SNOPR and August 2023 NODA, based on 
IER's analysis of the expanded test sample. (IER, No. 10111 at p. 5) 
IER asserted that only four out of 21 gas cooking tops in DOE's test 
sample meet updated EL 2, that three out of 30 gas cooking tops in 
AHAM's test sample meet updated EL 2, and that one out of 6 gas cooking 
tops in the PG&E test sample meet updated EL 2. (Id.) IER commented 
that DOE's review of websites of major U.S. retailers without test data 
does not provide sufficient information for DOE's determination of the 
percentage of cooking tops that would not be impacted by the proposed 
standard. (Id.) IER repeated its comments on the February 2023 SNOPR 
that there are no gas cooking tops in DOE's test sample currently 
available on the market that meet the proposed standards. (Id.)
    ONE Gas commented that DOE's test data are insufficient to justify 
the standards proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR and updated 
efficiency levels analyzed in the August 2023 NODA. (ONE Gas, No. 10109 
at pp. 2-3) ONE Gas commented that only one of the gas cooking top 
models tested meets the proposed standard and only two of the gas 
cooking top models tested meet the updated EL 2. (Id.) ONE Gas 
commented that DOE should use expanded testing prior to issuing an 
updated proposed standard for gas cooking tops. (Id.)
    DOE notes that 53 out of 55 non-entry-level gas cooking top units 
(i.e., with at least one HIR burner and continuous cast-iron grates) in 
its expanded test sample, including units with all HIR burners, as well 
as all eight entry-level gas cooking tops (i.e., cooking tops that do 
not have at least one HIR burner and continuous cast-iron grates) in 
its expanded test sample meet the adopted standard for gas cooking 
tops. Additionally, there are gas cooking tops in DOE's expanded test 
sample that meet the adopted standard level with all features 
identified by manufacturers and individual commenters as important to 
consumers.
    AGA asserted that the standards proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 
would violate the unavailability provision of EPCA through its drastic 
market elimination of 50 percent of the total gas cooking top market 
and 96 percent of the market for ``commercial'' or ``professional'' gas 
cooking tops--particularly those with features most desirable to 
consumers, such as HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates. (AGA, 
No. 2279 at pp. 21-24, 29-30) AGA commented that Congress ensured that: 
(1) energy conservation standards would not eliminate traits, 
qualities, or characteristics of products that make them work for 
consumers or are otherwise attractive to them; (2) energy conservation 
standards would be neutral as to which fuels that covered products use, 
protecting the standards from being used to favor one fuel source over 
another; (3) energy conservation standards would not eliminate a class 
of covered products or render them unworkable through infeasible or 
overly costly standards; and (4) DOE may not promulgate standards that 
are ``likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of 
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.'' (Id.) AGA asserted that the courts will pay particular 
scrutiny to DOE's interpretation in this case because DOE asserts the 
authority to eliminate the availability of a class of natural gas 
appliances with features desired by millions of Americans, which is a 
major policy decision that the courts will presume rests with Congress. 
(Id.) AGA asserted that performance-related features warrant separate 
standards, and DOE must not set standards that would be ``likely to 
result in the unavailability'' of currently available ``performance 
characteristics,'' which represents a desired policy outcome that fails 
to adhere to the structure Congress enacted into law. (Id.)
    AGA also asserted that the February 2023 SNOPR assumptions that the 
standard presents no problem because it would allow cooking tops to 
offer at least one HIR burner and continuous cast-iron grates are 
false. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 25-26)
    Spire commented that DOE's data do not support the proposition that 
the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR is achievable for gas 
cooking tops with the features and performance characteristics that 
many consumers demand, and that as such, there is no basis for the 
economic and energy conservation benefits that DOE claims justify the 
proposed standard. (Spire, No. 2710 at pp. 4-5) Spire asserted that the 
standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR violates DOE's requirement 
under EPCA to ensure that any proposed standards will not preclude 
consumers from purchasing the equivalent of products currently 
available to them on the market. (Id. at pp. 19-23)
    GAAS asserted that the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 
comes with restrictions to consumer choice and that restricted features 
include, but are not limited to, HIR burners and heavy-duty grates. 
(GAAS, No. 2271 at p. 2)
    NAHB asserted that the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 
could eliminate or severely limit several product features in gas 
cooking tops that are widely available currently and highly valued by 
consumers, including HIR burners (particularly cooking tops with 
multiple HIR burners), simmer burners for low-temperature cooking, and 
heavy cast-iron grates that add safety and durability over the lifespan 
of the appliance. (NAHB, No. 2288 at p. 2)
    Representatives McMorris-Rodgers et al. asserted that the design 
changes DOE expects manufacturers to make--such as smaller burners, 
longer cooking times, and smaller grates that could be less stable--are 
not likely to be accepted by consumers. (Representatives McMorris-
Rodgers et al., No. 765 at p. 2)
    CEI et al. asserted that the proposed rule violates the ``features 
provision'' of EPCA by jeopardizing several features of gas cooking 
tops that lead many cooks to prefer gas over electric cooking tops. 
(CEI et al., No. 2287 at pp. 3-4) CEI et al. commented that the 
features provision requires that characteristics presently available in 
gas cooking tops be preserved in substantially the same form and DOE 
lacks the discretion to decide whether a particular feature is 
important enough to warrant protection. (Id.) CEI et al. commented that 
HIR

[[Page 11526]]

burners (especially those with input rates greater than 20,000 Btu/h) 
are of particular concern, as this feature is critical for stir-frying, 
searing, or heating up a large pot of water in a short time, but CEI et 
al. asserted that the proposed rule would limit gas cooking tops to 
only one such burner (some currently available models have more than 
one) and require that the maximum heat for the one HIR burner be 
reduced to considerably less than those now available. (Id.) CEI et al. 
commented that the rule would also threaten smaller, low-heat burners 
ideal for cooking tasks like simmering. (Id.) CEI et al. commented that 
heavy and/or continuous (often cast-iron) grates needed to safely 
handle large pots and to shift them from one gas burner to another--a 
feature on several currently offered gas cooking top models--may also 
be in jeopardy. (Id.)
    Wilfong and Dayaratna commented that the standard proposed in the 
February 2023 SNOPR could eliminate many gas cooking tops from the 
market or at least significantly affect competition and degrade 
consumer choice, which is not permitted under EPCA. (Wilfong and 
Dayaratna, No. 2281 at pp. 5-6) Wilfong and Dayaratna asserted that 
consumers value energy safety, convenience, and durability along with 
energy efficiency when choosing appliances, and if DOE regulates based 
on one or two characteristics and prioritizes energy efficiency over 
other factors, the government stifles the free market, hinders 
innovation, and discourages products that consumers want to buy. (Id.)
    Strauch commented that manufacturers offer a range of grate and 
burner design choices to consumers for aesthetic purposes, in addition 
to utility purposes. (Strauch, No. 2263 at p. 2)
    Zycher commented that DOE accounts for neither the reasons why 
consumers prefer a mix of cooking products nor the benefits that 
consumers see in various cooking products' cooking quality or 
convenience. (Zycher, No. 2266 at pp. 3-4) Zycher commented that the 
proposed rule would reduce or eliminate many products preferred by 
consumers, and that this is an essential consideration when developing 
a cost/benefit analysis. (Id.) Zycher asserted that consumers would be 
forced to choose the product characteristics favored by DOE, which 
suggests that the benefits of consumer choices exceed the costs 
estimated by DOE. (Id.)
    AHAM asserted that finalizing standards at the proposed levels for 
gas products will force a ``race to the middle'' where all products are 
essentially the same and, contrary to EPCA's requirements and the 
Process Rule, lack features and functionality currently available in 
the U.S. market (HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates). (AHAM, 
No. 2285 at pp. 15-16) AHAM also asserted that DOE's proposed levels 
will likely result in homogenized cooking top designs that eliminate 
more than one HIR burner and the consumer utility associated with 
multiple HIR burners, eliminate burners with input rates at or above 
14,000 Btu/h without adding costs that DOE has not accounted for in its 
analysis (lengthening boil times), eliminate LIR burners, and offer 
burner input rates ranging from 9,500-10,000 Btu/h in order to meet the 
stringent standard. (Id. at p. 43) AHAM commented that the products 
potentially capable of meeting the standard proposed in the February 
2023 SNOPR are those that do not include the very features and utility 
that DOE deemed must be maintained. (Id. at pp. 15-16) Thus, asserted 
AHAM, the February 2023 NODA shows that DOE's proposed standard for gas 
cooking tops do not meet EPCA's requirements. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that, contrary to EPCA's requirements, DOE's 
proposed standard for gas cooking tops will eliminate gas products with 
performance characteristics, features, and sizes that are substantially 
the same as those generally available in the United States today. (Id. 
at pp. 16-17) AHAM commented that its consumer research shows that 
consumers of cooking products rated safety (88 percent), performance 
(87 percent), and cost (85 percent) as extremely or very important 
purchase drivers more than energy efficiency (79 percent) and cost to 
use over time (76 percent). (Id.) AHAM commented this analysis 
demonstrates that, consistent with EPCA's requirements, DOE must ensure 
that safety, performance, and product price are not negatively impacted 
by its proposed energy conservation standards. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that while DOE has acknowledged consumer-valued 
features for gas cooking tops, it has not produced an exhaustive list 
of those features. (AHAM, No. 10116 at pp. 15-16) AHAM commented that 
ranking these features by monetary value could help DOE preserve these 
features under EPCA. (Id.)
    AHAM asserted that commenters have provided evidence that the 
proposed standard is likely to result in the unavailability of features 
generally available at the time of this rulemaking, including but not 
limited to safety, performance, and product price; cooking tops with 
more than one HIR burner; LIR burners; a spectrum of heat input rates; 
conventional ranges; continuous cast-iron grates; and specialty cooking 
zones. (Id. at pp. 19-21) AHAM commented that much of this information 
is publicly available from online product reviews. (Id.) AHAM commented 
that HIR burners, LIR burners, and continuous cast-iron grates are 
likely to be removed under the proposed standards. (Id.)
    Whirlpool asserted that the proposed rulemaking threatens to 
diminish the availability, utility, and performance of consumer 
conventional cooking products, particularly gas cooking tops and gas 
ranges, which will negatively affect how consumers cook. (Whirlpool, 
No. 2284 at p. 6) Whirlpool asserted that the proposed and updated EL 2 
for gas cooking tops do not preserve key features of products available 
on the market today, and that DOE is not permitted under EPCA to 
prescribe energy conservation standards for gas cooking tops as 
proposed. (Whirlpool, No. 10117 at p. 2)
    Whirlpool commented that the standard proposed in the February 2023 
SNOPR would effectively require manufacturers of gas cooking tops and 
gas ranges to replace large (input rates greater than 15,000 Btu/h) and 
small (input rates of 5,000-6,000 Btu/h) burners with mid-sized (input 
rates of 9,500-10,000 Btu/h) burners that offer higher optimized tested 
efficiency under appendix I1. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at p. 7) Whirlpool 
asserted that cooking with mid-sized burners will disrupt the cooking 
process for many types of meals and consumers will likely lose the 
ability to use their cooking tops for low-temperature cooking. (Id.)
    ONE Gas commented that with the updated efficiency levels in the 
August 2023 NODA, at least 59 percent of current gas cooking top models 
would be eliminated from the market. (ONE Gas, No. 10109 at p. 4) ONE 
Gas asserted that elimination of gas cooking top models will 
disproportionately impact certain manufacturers and will reduce product 
availability and consumer choice. (Id.)
    DOE notes that its definition of EL 1 for gas cooking tops, as 
updated in this direct final rule, and consistent with the Recommended 
TSL, represents the most energy efficient AEC among units with multiple 
HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates that would not preclude any 
combination of other features mentioned by manufacturers (e.g., 
different nominal unit widths, sealed burners, at least one LIR burner, 
multiple dual-stacked and/or multi-ring HIR burners, and at least one 
extra-high input rate burner), as demonstrated by

[[Page 11527]]

products from multiple manufacturers in the expanded test sample. As 
such, DOE notes that any utility associated with these features is 
preserved under the adopted standards. DOE also determines that the 
adopted standards would not result in homogenized cooking top designs, 
because the adopted standards do not preclude any combination of the 
features mentioned by manufacturers, and a wide range of both entry-
level and non-entry-level gas cooking tops meeting the adopted 
standards from multiple manufacturers already exist on the market.
    AGA asserted that the proposed rule would eliminate features from 
gas cooking tops that permit home cooks and home-based businesses to 
make certain foods, with impacts on the ability to cook a family meal, 
a holiday dinner, or food that is part of a home-based business, such 
as catering. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 50-51) AGA also asserted that DOE's 
proposal would limit cooks to one stir-fry dish or one large pot of 
boiling water, but not both, and that cooks would no longer be able to 
shift a heavy pot of hot water or a large pan without lifting it 
because a continuous cast-iron grate would no longer be an option. 
(Id.) AGA commented that DOE should conduct a full analysis of the 
impact of the proposed rule on the various communities in the United 
States whose cooking methods and food preferences would be negatively 
impacted, and also analyze the impact on home-based businesses. (Id.)
    APGA commented that despite DOE acknowledging the consumer utility 
of HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates, DOE did nothing to 
protect these features, as required by EPCA. (APGA, No. 2283 at pp. 4-
5) APGA commented that DOE proposed to set the standards for gas 
cooking products at max-tech, which does not allow for more than one 
HIR burner, if any at all, or the use of heavy cast-iron grates, and no 
``professional-style cooking products'' passed DOE's testing. (Id.) 
APGA asserted that because DOE is in violation of EPCA's unavailability 
provisions, DOE must reissue proposed standards that adequately protect 
these features in all situations, not just some, whether that be done 
with the creation of separate product classes or in some other manner. 
(Id.)
    Western Energy Alliance commented that home cooks benefit from 
access to the same features of gas cooking tops enjoyed by professional 
chefs, which include (1) the ability to control temperature precisely; 
(2) better distribution of heat for even cooking, which is especially 
important for complex recipes; (3) efficiency, as it takes about three 
times as much energy to produce and deliver the electricity to the 
cooking top compared to gas at the burner tip; (4) instant heat and 
higher temperatures, resulting in shorter cook times; and (5) the 
ability to cook during an electricity outage. (Western Energy Alliance, 
No. 2272 at pp. 2-3) Western Energy Alliance asserted that DOE's 
proposed rule would risk the future availability of HIR burners on gas 
cooking tops (and therefore common cooking styles like stir-frying and 
searing). (Id.)
    Wilfong and Dayaratna commented that DOE proposed to alter features 
that the TSD for the February 2023 SNOPR acknowledges that 
manufacturers and consumers have indicated as enhancing performance and 
utility, such as HIR burners with large diameters; HIR burners with 
high levels of flame controllability; spacing between the gas flame, 
grate, and cookware; and heavy, cast-iron grates. (Wilfong and 
Dayaratna, No. 2281 at pp. 3-4) Wilfong and Dayaratna that EPCA 
statutorily requires DOE to consider any lessening of utility or 
performance, and they asserted that by requiring design alterations 
such as flame angle, distance from burner to cookware, and grate 
weight, DOE proposes a standard that runs in direct opposition to this 
requirement. (Id.)
    Whirlpool commented that the standard proposed in the February 2023 
SNOPR would effectively ban an entire class of high output gas cooking 
products that have many features and utilities that consumers consider 
to be important, including the ability to perform low-temperature 
cooking, as well as having the necessary burner input rates across a 
number of burners to perform large cooking events. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 
at pp. 6-7) Whirlpool asserted that the proposed standard may harm 
consumers who rely on gas stoves to cook certain cuisines, and that the 
proposed standard would effectively eliminate aspects of cooking tops 
that consumers prefer, such as 18,000 Btu/h rapid burners and thick 
continuous cast-iron grates, both because of flame size efficiency and 
aesthetic appeal. (Id.) Whirlpool commented that this would be 
inconsistent with EPCA's unavailability provision. (Id.)
    Sub-Zero asserted that to meet the standard proposed in the 
February 2023 SNOPR for gas cooking tops, manufacturers would be forced 
to reduce the burner input rate and the mass of the grates, both of 
which would diametrically oppose the needs of Sub-Zero's niche market. 
(Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at p. 4) Sub-Zero requested that DOE reanalyze the 
market for the entirety of gas cooking tops and most specifically, the 
``commercial''- or ``professional''-style market. (Id.) Sub-Zero 
commented that while all of its Wolf-brand electric products (using 
both radiant and induction technology) meet the proposed standard for 
electric smooth element cooking tops, no Wolf-brand gas model is close 
to meeting the proposed standard for gas cooking tops, which Sub-Zero 
commented is inappropriate from a rulemaking process perspective and a 
threat to its niche market. (Id.)
    Sub-Zero shared several confidential data sets with DOE 
representing what it characterized as its niche consumer needs in high-
performance surface cooking, including specifics on HIR burners, which 
have been reflected in its Wolf-brand products. (Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at 
p. 6)
    Sub-Zero commented it could find no evidence that DOE took into 
consideration important attributes of high-performance gas cooking tops 
in its February 2023 SNOPR analysis, such as: mass of grates, diameter 
of gas burner, distance from burner to utensil surface, and open area 
for primary and secondary air for combustion and exhaust of combustion 
by-products. (Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at p. 9)
    Sub-Zero asserted that cooking top performance includes much more 
than speed-to-boil time, and that the high-performance cooking 
equipment user expects controllability of the flame, specifically in 
the area of simmer/low heat for foods such as melting of chocolate and 
simmering of sauces. (Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at pp. 10-11) Sub-Zero 
commented that dual-stacked burner systems can provide excellent simmer 
performance while also achieving fast speed-to-boil times, by adding 
two distinct burner port rings and combustion systems within one unique 
burner position for high burner input rate along with precise simmer 
performance from a single burner position. (Id.) Sub-Zero commented 
that this design affects spacing from the flame to the cooking vessel 
to enhance performance at low input rates and allow precise burner 
control, both of which are impacted greatly when balancing safety and 
efficiency standards. (Id.)
    Sub-Zero asserted that consumers who purchase high-performance 
cooking tops require special performance enhancements for which they 
are willing to spend up to ten times more than for a non-high 
performance cooking top. (Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at p. 11) Sub-Zero 
acknowledged that a precise definition of ``high-

[[Page 11528]]

performance'' may be hard to develop, but stated DOE's obligation under 
law to acknowledge performance-related features that provide utility to 
the consumer. (Id.)
    As discussed, the adopted standards will not preclude designs with 
multiple HIR burners, continuous cast-iron grates, and any combination 
of other features mentioned by manufacturers. As such, DOE preserved 
the utility, including the cooking processes and styles, of existing 
gas cooking tops. The results for units in DOE's expanded test sample 
satisfying AHAM's suggested definition of a high-performance gas 
cooking top demonstrate that such units can meet the adopted standard.
c. High Input Rate Burners
    AGA commented that HIR burners are sought by consumers because of 
their versatility to boil very large amounts of water without long wait 
times or to allow cookware to reach ideal surface temperatures for 
cooking normal portions of food while maintaining that temperature 
despite the initial shock from adding room temperature ingredients into 
a pan. (AGA, No. 2279 at p. 30)
    APGA commented that DOE should screen out products without both 
multiple HIR burners and cast-iron grates because such products would 
have adverse impacts on product utility or availability to consumers. 
(APGA, No. 2283 at p. 5)
    ONE Gas asserted that the proposed rule for gas cooking tops would 
have unrealistic and discriminatory effects on consumer utility. (ONE 
Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 4-5; ONE Gas, No. 10109 at p. 4) ONE Gas asserted 
that the proposed total cooking top IAEC maximum would limit cooking 
performance for searing and stir-frying to just one HIR burner, and 
asserted that the burner would be limited in providing heat rates that 
might not meet consumer needs for these cooking functions. (Id.) ONE 
Gas also asserted that DOE's presumption of consumer ``needs'' limited 
to one such burner is unjustified. (Id.)
    Spire asserted that multiple HIR burners are a typical feature of 
the highest-performing and most highly rated gas cooking tops and that 
no such products in DOE's test sample can meet the standard proposed in 
the February 2023 SNOPR. (Spire, No. 2710 at pp. 19-23) Spire commented 
that multiple HIR burners are desired by many consumers for the ability 
to quickly reach a boil in multiple pots at the same time. (Id.)
    AHAM stated agreement with DOE that HIR burners must be retained as 
a key consumer feature. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 3-4) AHAM asserted, 
however, that DOE's proposed stringent energy conversation standards 
would allow only a single HIR burner, even though DOE recognizes in the 
February 2023 SNOPR the ``unique consumer utility'' of this feature 
that allows high-heat cooking activities such as searing and stir-
frying. (Id. at pp. 17-19) AHAM commented that research supplied by 
members show consumers desire the ability to boil water faster using an 
HIR burner and to have another HIR burner available because they have 
more than one large pan in use, particularly for serving larger groups 
of people and special occasion meals. (Id.) However, commented AHAM, no 
cooking top in DOE's or AHAM's sample with more than one HIR burner 
meets the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. (Id.) DOE's own 
anticipated design pathways to reach EL 2 for gas cooking tops involves 
reducing the number of HIR burners. (Id.) AHAM commented that, with the 
possible exception of DOE Test Unit #2 with its single HIR burner, no 
product in AHAM's or DOE's test sample with even a single HIR burner 
meets the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR--and asserted 
that DOE Test Unit #2 likely would not be certified to meet the 
proposed standard in the future. AHAM commented that DOE must ensure 
that a final standard does not remove this important performance 
feature. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that DOE should consider the utility associated with 
more than one HIR burner because consumers find utility in being able 
to mix and match various pan sizes and cooking methods all at the same 
time. (Id. at pp. 19-20) AHAM commented that in order to avoid 
negatively impacting consumer utility and removing products on the 
market like those that are available today--which is contrary to EPCA--
DOE must ensure that its standards do not require limitations on the 
number of HIR burners. (Id.) AHAM asserted that boiling two pots of 
water on a unit with only one HIR burner would take 37 percent longer 
than on a unit with two burners having input rates of 19,000 Btu/h. 
(Id.)
    AHAM commented that research shows consumers typically use two or 
more burners to make dinner and four or more for special occasions and 
want the ability to cook with a spectrum of heat inputs. (Id. at pp. 
22-23)
    In response to the August 2023 NODA, AHAM asserted that the updated 
EL 2 for gas cooking tops cannot be achieved by models with all HIR 
burners, noting that none of the seven units with all HIR burners in 
the expanded data set meet the proposed or updated EL 2. (AHAM, No. 
10116 at pp. 8-9) AHAM commented that it is unclear how DOE identified 
the updated EL 2 and what gas cooking top with all HIR burners can meet 
updated EL 2. (Id.) AHAM commented that if DOE is basing this claim on 
a theoretical unit that has the most efficient HIR burners from 
different units, the methodology fails to take into account system 
dynamics and interactions between various components. (Id.) AHAM 
commented that DOE should explain and provide data to show that the 
proposed standard or updated EL 2 can be met by a unit with all HIR 
burners. (Id.) AHAM asserted that applicable units in the expanded test 
sample that meet EL 2 only have one HIR burner. (Id.)
    AGA et al. commented that they disagree that the updated EL 2 is 
achievable with multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates. 
(AGA et al., No. 10112 at pp. 8-9) AGA et al. commented that DOE's data 
shows that of the 55 tested gas cooking tops with HIR burners and 
continuous cast-iron grates, only one gas cooking top with multiple HIR 
burners was able to achieve EL 2 (DOE Test Unit #10). (Id.) AGA et al. 
commented that this unit met EL 2 by a margin of 1.25 percent, which 
they asserted is within the test procedure's margin for error and would 
preclude any reasonable certification of compliance with a standard 
based on EL 2. (Id.) AGA et al. commented that among the other 54 gas 
cooking tops tested, only eight gas cooking tops can achieve EL 2, and 
that none of those products have more than one HIR burner. (Id.)
    AGA et al. commented that DOE has not provided evidence that 
manufacturers will be able to redesign their products to achieve 
significant improvements in measured efficiency without compromising 
the features or performance of their products. (Id. at pp. 9-10) AGA et 
al. commented that the presence of HIR burners and continuous cast-iron 
grates appears to be the only material determinant of whether products 
could satisfy the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR, and 
that they find the same to be true of the updated EL 2. (Id.) AGA et 
al. commented that changes to flame angle and distance from burner 
ports to cooking surfaces are design options that have the potential to 
degrade product features or performance without providing real energy 
savings. (Id.) AGA et al. commented that DOE has not explained how 
anticipated efficiency improvements can be achieved through redesigned 
products. (Id.) AGA et al.

[[Page 11529]]

commented that DOE does not include a description of what constitutes 
EL 2 as presented in the August 2023 NODA. (Id.)
    After evaluation of comments and data received in response to the 
February 2023 SNOPR, DOE evaluated the utility associated with multiple 
HIR burners and updated its screening analysis and efficiency levels in 
order to define efficiency levels achievable by gas cooking tops with 
multiple HIR burners. The adopted standard for gas cooking tops 
preserves the utility associated with multiple HIR burners.
d. Low Input Rate Burners
    AHAM commented that DOE should consider LIR burners in its 
screening criteria and ensure that its final standards do not eliminate 
LIR burners, which are ranked amongst the most important cooking top 
features for consumers. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 20-22) In this context, 
AHAM defined LIR burners as having an input rate of 6,500 Btu/h or 
less, based on Consumer Reports, and noted that they are typically 
designed to gently heat small quantities of liquid and are used by 
consumers for melting chocolate, cooking sauces, gravies, simmering 
soups/stews, cooking scrambled eggs, etc. and also used to keep food 
warm. (Id.) AHAM commented that LIR burners are smaller in diameter, 
with 30-40 percent lower minimum input rates than traditional (non-
multi-ring) burners, and because the test procedure measures the 
efficiency of boiling a pot of water, these burners appear less 
efficient when tested using the appendix I1 test procedure and, 
therefore, do not meet DOE's proposed level. (Id.) AHAM asserted that 
to comply with the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR, 
manufacturers may not be able to offer LIR burners, and their removal 
will have negative performance impacts on consumers and consumer 
utility. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that DOE's definition of a LIR burner is 
inconsistent in the August 2023 NODA. (AHAM, No. 10116 at pp. 7-8) AHAM 
commented that DOE should clarify the definition of a LIR burner used 
in its analysis and provide opportunity for comment. (Id.) AHAM further 
commented that DOE has not preserved LIR burners as a product feature. 
(Id.) AHAM asserted that what DOE calls non-optimized burners are 
actually LIR burners. (Id.) AHAM commented that according to its 
dataset, 73 percent of all burners that meet the definition of non-
optimized have input rates less than 6,500 Btu/hr. (Id.) AHAM commented 
that the proposed standard for gas cooking tops would require the 
removal of LIR burners in order to increase efficiency. (Id.) AHAM 
commented that DOE should not eliminate product features but instead 
exclude non-optimized burners from the test procedure. (Id.) AHAM 
asserted that optimizing a LIR burner could result in a loss of utility 
because, while an LIR burner can be optimized to boil water more 
efficiently by reducing grate weight, bringing the flame closer to the 
cookware, and pointing the flame more directly at the cookware, these 
design changes reduce utility of the LIR burner. (Id.) AHAM commented 
that multi-ring burners can preserve the utility of a LIR burner, but 
that multi-ring technology is significantly more expensive, and that 
DOE should consider the cost of replacing LIR burners with multi-ring 
burners for manufacturers. (Id.)
    DOE considers a LIR burner to have a burner input rate less than 
6,500 Btu/h. DOE notes that its adopted standard for gas cooking tops 
does not preclude the use of LIR burners, as demonstrated by units in 
its expanded test sample. As discussed in section IV.C.3.b of this 
document, DOE notes that it considers burners with ``non-optimized'' 
turndown capability to be burners for which the lowest available simmer 
setting is more energy consumptive than necessary to hold the test load 
in a constant simmer close to 90 [deg]C, resulting in significantly 
higher energy consumption than for a burner with a simmer setting that 
holds the test load close to that temperature. 88 FR 50810, 50813. DOE 
empirically defines a non-optimized burner as having a specific energy 
use of more than 1.45 Btu per gram of water in the test load, as 
measured by appendix I1. Id. As such, DOE clarifies that its definition 
of a non-optimized burner is separate from the definition of a LIR 
burner and that its test sample includes LIR burners that are 
``optimized,'' as well as ``non-optimized'' burners with input rates 
above 6,500 Btu/h. DOE additionally notes that the IAEC of a gas 
cooking top is calculated as the average of the performance of each of 
the individual burners on the cooking top. DOE notes that the adopted 
standard for gas cooking tops would not preclude a non-optimized burner 
if the average performance of all burners on the cooking top achieves 
the standard, but also notes that optimized turndown capability is a 
design option available to manufacturers in order to improve the 
efficiency of a cooking top. DOE further determines that excluding non-
optimized burners from the test procedure is not warranted. However, as 
discussed in section IV.C.3.b of this document, DOE has previously 
stated that a burner that is not able to heat water to 90 [deg]C would 
likely be excluded from testing because it would be a specialty cooking 
zone (e.g., a warming plate or zone). 87 FR 51492, 51505.
e. Cooking Time
    Consumers' Research asserted that the standard proposed in the 
February 2023 SNOPR may require manufacturers to redesign gas cooking 
tops with reduced burner sizes or heat outputs leading to longer 
cooking times, which would pose time constraints on consumers' cooking 
abilities and perhaps incentivize consumers to choose unhealthy pre-
packaged food options over home-cooked meals. (Consumers' Research, No. 
2267 at pp. 2-3)
    AHAM asserted that part of the consumer utility of HIR burners is 
quicker times to boil and that the standard proposed in the February 
2023 SNOPR would eliminate that performance feature and lengthen times 
to boil. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 18) AHAM further noted that its data 
show that time to boil is directly related to burner input rate, with 
higher burner input rates generally resulting in shorter times to boil. 
(Id.)
    DOE notes that its adopted standard for gas cooking tops does not 
preclude the use of extra-high input rate burners or multiple HIR 
burners on a cooking top. DOE therefore determines that cooking time is 
not impacted by its adopted standards.
f. Continuous Cast-Iron Grates
    AHAM asserted that in order to achieve the ``burner and grate 
optimization'' required by the standard proposed in the February 2023 
SNOPR, manufacturers are likely to turn to thinner, wire grates, 
meaning that consumers will lose the option of sturdier grates that 
allow pots and pans to be safely moved from one place to another 
without lifting the pot/pan--a commonly reported activity. (AHAM, No. 
2285 at p. 24) AHAM commented that consumer research provided by its 
members indicates that large, heavy, or specialty pots must be able to 
be slid from burner to burner without getting caught or causing a spill 
that must be cleaned up or cause a burn, which is a purchase driver for 
consumers and translates to consumer satisfaction. (Id.)
    As discussed, DOE evaluated only efficiency levels in this direct 
final rule analysis that can be achieved by gas cooking tops with 
multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates. Therefore, the 
adopted standards do not require the use of wire grates.

[[Page 11530]]

g. Conventional Ranges
    NAHB commented that gas ranges are crucial for affordable housing 
as they represent the more affordable end of the product spectrum and 
are often used in starter homes and dwellings with limited kitchen 
sizes. (NAHB, No. 2288 at p. 2) NAHB asserted that many consumer-
preferred ranges will likely be unable to comply with the standard 
proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR despite being a popular consumer 
choice and recommended that DOE define separate product classes for gas 
cooking tops and gas ranges. (Id.)
    Senators Marshall et al. commented that only one cooking top in 
DOE's test sample, and no freestanding ranges meet the standard for gas 
cooking tops proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. (Senators Marshall et 
al., No. 2277 at p. 1) Senators Marshall et al. stated that none of the 
products that manufacturers tested were able to meet the proposed 
standard and that the rule poses serious consumer concerns with no 
consumer benefits. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that ranges offer the consumer a cooking top and an 
oven in a single product, taking up less space than a separate cooking 
top and oven, and ranges are less expensive to install because they do 
not require customization in the kitchen. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 23) 
However, AHAM noted, no ranges in DOE's or AHAM's sample meet DOE's 
proposed energy conservation standard for gas cooking tops. (Id.) AHAM 
commented that millions of ranges are sold each year and yet the 
standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR threatens to eliminate 
them from the market for gas products, as no gas ranges meet the 
proposed standard. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that no gas ranges in DOE's or AHAM's test sample 
meet the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR, asserting that 
products representing 91 percent of U.S. shipments in 2022 would not 
meet the proposed standard. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 27)
    DOE notes that electric and gas ranges can meet the adopted 
standards, as demonstrated by the units in its expanded test sample.
    AHAM commented DOE should understand the safety requirements for 
gas ranges that impact the ability of ranges to achieve higher levels 
of efficiency, which include: combustion requirements (also applicable 
to cooking tops) that require higher grates and make burners less 
efficient; component temperature thermal and emissions testing for gas 
and electric ranges that are run with both the cooking top and oven 
components on; surface temperatures for both electric and gas ranges 
that affect the proximity of elements/burners to touchpad and knobs, 
which must be designed to ensure touchable surfaces remain cool for the 
user; enclosure temperatures that impact grate design, input rates, and 
burner spacing to ensure fire hazards are avoided; and venting location 
and impact on secondary air for cooking top burners, because the oven 
is on during safety testing of freestanding ranges. (AHAM, No. 2285 at 
pp. 26-27)
    The cooking top efficiency levels that DOE analyzed for this direct 
final rule were based on the measured performance of gas and electric 
cooking tops available on the market in the United States, and 
therefore which meet all applicable safety standards. The adopted 
standards can be achieved by both standalone cooking tops and the 
cooking top portion of combined cooking products, such as ranges, as 
demonstrated by units in DOE's expanded test sample.
h. Unit Width
    AHAM commented that the size of the unit plays an important role in 
the design of the cooking top due to its impact on the availability of 
secondary air. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 26) AHAM commented that it 
believes the only gas cooking top to meet the standard proposed in the 
February 2023 SNOPR is 36 inches wide, making it easier to pass this 
test, and that DOE must consider all widths in order to ensure it does 
not eliminate consumer utility. (Id.)
    Representatives McMorris-Rodgers et al. stated that DOE has not 
demonstrated that its proposed design changes are possible for products 
outside the niche market of 36-inch-wide countertop-mounted cooking 
tops and noted that EPCA prohibits DOE from using standards to 
eliminate products with features that are substantially the same as 
those available on the market today. (Representatives McMorris-Rodgers 
et al., No. 765 at p. 2, citing 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
    BSH Home Appliances Corporation (``BSH'') commented that it 
supports the inclusion of additional consumer-valued features in the 
August 2023 NODA efficiency levels. (BSH, No. 10110 at p. 2) BSH 
commented that while DOE finds that units with two to six HIR burners 
can achieve the updated EL 1 and that a gas cooking top with all HIR 
burners can achieve the updated EL 2, the data set does not account for 
any range greater than 36 inches in width. (Id.)
    DOE notes that the adopted standards for gas and electric cooking 
tops do not preclude units of varying width and installation 
configuration from meeting the standard, as demonstrated by units in 
its expanded test sample. Specifically, since the IAEC metric is an 
average measurement across all cooking zones on a cooking top, the 
number of cooking zones (and by proxy, the unit width) has no bearing 
on a unit's ability to meet the adopted standard levels.
i. Conclusion
    DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this direct final 
rule will not lessen the utility or performance of the consumer 
conventional cooking products under consideration in this rulemaking. 
Manufacturers of these products currently offer units that meet or 
exceed the adopted standards.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to 
result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section III.E.1.e 
of this document, EPCA directs the Attorney General of the United 
States (``Attorney General'') to determine the impact, if any, of any 
lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and 
to transmit such determination in writing to the Secretary within 60 
days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis 
of the nature and extent of the impact. To assist the Attorney General 
in making this determination, DOE is providing the Department of 
Justice (``DOJ'') with copies of this direct final rule and the TSD for 
review.
    Overall, DOE does not anticipate that energy conservation standards 
set at the Recommended TSL, i.e., TSL 1, would significantly alter the 
current market structure that consumer conventional cooking products 
are currently sold.
    DOE does not expect this direct final rule to increase the 
concentration in an already concentrated market. 88 FR 6818, 6887. DOE 
understands that barriers to entry or expansion associated with 
manufacturing and selling cooking products is high particularly in the 
mass-market segment. The cost of developing brand recognition; 
achieving manufacturing scale to lower production costs; and developing 
a distribution network, are all significant challenges. The industry 
has responded by segmenting the market into more focused markets that 
allow differentiation and competition on factors other than price. For 
the reasons described in this section, the proposed

[[Page 11531]]

rule likely would not alter the competitive balance or market structure 
of the consumer conventional cooking product industry.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves 
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the 
environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity 
demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce 
the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, 
particularly during peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the direct final 
rule TSD presents the estimated impacts on electricity generating 
capacity, relative to the no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE 
considered in this rulemaking.
    In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, Fall commented that the 
impact of performance standards on energy security should be 
considered, particularly with respect to the need for diversification 
of energy sources to provide increased energy security. (Fall, No. 376 
at pp. 1-2) Fall commented that performance standards should be 
technologically feasible while allowing a range of products utilizing 
an array of possible energy source. (Id. at p. 2)
    As discussed in section V.C of this document, the Secretary has 
concluded that the standards adopted in this direct final rule 
represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result 
in significant conservation of energy. As discussed in section V.B.4 of 
this document, consumers will continue to have access to cooking 
products with the same performance features across both electric and 
gas fuel types at the adopted TSL (the Recommended TSL detailed in the 
Joint Agreement).
    Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation 
standards for consumer conventional cooking products is expected to 
yield environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of 
certain air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table V.34 provides DOE's 
estimate of cumulative emissions reductions expected to result from the 
TSLs considered in this rulemaking. The emissions were calculated using 
the multipliers discussed in section IV.K of this document. DOE reports 
annual emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the direct 
final rule TSD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.074

    As part of the analysis for this rule, DOE estimated monetary 
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 
that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for consumer 
conventional cooking products. Section IV.L of this document discusses 
the estimated SC-CO2 values that DOE used. Table V.35 
presents the value of CO2 emissions reduction at each TSL 
for each of the SC-CO2 cases. The time-series of annual 
values is presented for

[[Page 11532]]

the selected TSL in chapter 14 of the direct final rule TSD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.075

    As discussed in section IV.L.2 of this document, DOE estimated the 
climate benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of methane 
and N2O that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs 
for consumer conventional cooking products. Table V.36 presents the 
value of the CH4 emissions reduction at each TSL, and Table 
V.37 presents the value of the N2O emissions reduction at 
each TSL. The time-series of annual values is presented for the 
selected TSL in chapter 14 of the direct final rule TSD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.077

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in 
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the 
global and U.S. economy continues to evolve rapidly. DOE, together with 
other Federal agencies, will continue to review methodologies for 
estimating the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other 
GHG emissions. This ongoing review will consider the comments on this 
subject that are part of the public record for this and other 
rulemakings, as well as other methodological assumptions and issues. 
DOE notes, however, that the adopted standards would be economically 
justified even without inclusion of monetized benefits of reduced GHG 
emissions.
    DOE also estimated the monetary value of the economic benefits 
associated with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions 
anticipated to result from the considered TSLs for consumer 
conventional cooking products. The dollar-per-ton values that DOE used 
are discussed in section IV.L of this

[[Page 11533]]

document. Table V.38 presents the present value for NOX 
emissions reduction for each TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-
percent discount rates, and Table V.39 presents similar results for 
SO2 emissions reductions. The results in these tables 
reflect application of EPA's low dollar-per-ton values, which DOE used 
to be conservative. The time-series of annual values is presented for 
the selected TSL in chapter 14 of the direct final rule TSD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.079

    Not all the public health and environmental benefits from the 
reduction of greenhouse gases, NOX, and SO2 are 
captured in the values above, and additional unquantified benefits from 
the reductions of those pollutants as well as from the reduction of 
direct PM and other co-pollutants may be significant. DOE has not 
included monetary benefits of the reduction of Hg emissions because the 
amount of reduction is very small.
7. Other Factors
    The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No 
other factors were considered in this analysis.
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    Table V.40 presents the NPV values that result from adding the 
estimates of the economic benefits resulting from reduced GHG and 
NOX and SO2 emissions to the NPV of consumer 
benefits calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. The 
consumer benefits are domestic U.S. monetary savings that occur as a 
result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the 
lifetime of products shipped during the period 2027-2056 for all TSLs 
except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) and 2028-2057 for TSL 1. The climate 
benefits associated with reduced GHG emissions resulting from the 
adopted standards are global benefits and are also calculated based on 
the lifetime of consumer conventional cooking products shipped during 
the period 2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) 
and 2028-2057 for TSL 1.

[[Page 11534]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.080

C. Conclusion

    When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the 
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, 
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    For this direct final rule, DOE considered the impacts of new and 
amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products at each 
TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible level, to 
determine whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-
tech level was not justified, DOE then considered the next most 
efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the 
highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and 
economically justified and saves a significant amount of energy.
    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 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. 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.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ 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.\142\ DOE 
welcomes comments on how to

[[Page 11535]]

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

    \142\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer Conventional 
Cooking Product Standards
    Table V.41 and Table V.42 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, the Recommended TSL; 
2028-2057 for TSL 1). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and 
value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. DOE is 
presenting monetized benefits of GHG emissions reductions in accordance 
with the applicable Executive Orders and would reach the same 
conclusion presented in this notice in the absence of the social cost 
of greenhouse gases, including the Interim Estimates presented by the 
Interagency Working Group. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL 
are described in section V.A of this document.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.081


[[Page 11536]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.082

    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 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 Mt of 
CO2, 6.96 thousand tons of SO2, 80.03 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.05 tons of Hg, 366.22 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.25 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 3 is $2.2 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.
    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-

[[Page 11537]]

new-standards case. The estimated total NPV is provided for additional 
information, however DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer 
benefits when determining whether a proposed standard level is 
economically justified.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a 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 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 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 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-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 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 concluded that 
TSL 2 is not economically justified.
    DOE next considered the Recommended TSL, 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.

[[Page 11538]]

    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.
    For all TSLs considered in this direct final rule--except for the 
Recommended TSL--DOE is bound by the 3-year lead time requirements in 
EPCA when determining compliance dates (i.e., compliance with new and 
amended standards required in 2027). For the Recommended TSL, DOE's 
analysis utilized the January 31, 2028, compliance date specified in 
the Joint Agreement as it was an integral part of the multi-product 
joint recommendation. A 2028 compliance year provides manufacturers 
additional flexibility to spread capital requirements, engineering 
resources, and conversion activities over a longer period of time 
depending on the individual needs of each manufacturer. Furthermore, 
these delayed compliance dates provide additional lead time and 
certainty for supplier of components that improve efficiency.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has concluded that 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 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 HIR burners, continuous 
cast-iron grates, different nominal unit widths, sealed burners, at 
least one LIR burner, 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. 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

[[Page 11539]]

percentage of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost and longer payback 
periods relative to EL 1. The adopted 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 concluded that they are economically justified, as discussed for 
the Recommended TSL in the preceding paragraphs.
    Accordingly, the Secretary 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 adopts the 
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products at the Recommended TSL.
    While DOE considered each potential TSL under the criteria laid out 
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) as previously discussed, DOE notes that the 
Recommended TSL for consumer conventional cooking products adopted in 
this direct final rule is part of a multi-product Joint Agreement 
covering six rulemakings (consumer conventional cooking products; 
residential clothes washers; consumer clothes dryers; dishwashers; 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; and miscellaneous 
refrigeration products). The signatories indicate that the Joint 
Agreement for the six rulemakings should be considered as a joint 
statement of recommended standards, to be adopted in its entirety. As 
discussed in section V.B.2.e of this document, many consumer 
conventional cooking product manufacturers also manufacture 
dishwashers; refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; 
residential clothes washers; consumer clothes dryers; and miscellaneous 
refrigeration products. Therefore, there are potential integrated 
benefits to the Joint Agreement. Rather than requiring compliance with 
five new and amended standards in a single year (2027),\143\ the 
negotiated multi-product Joint Agreement staggers the compliance dates 
for the five amended standards over a 4-year period (2027-2030). In 
response to the February 2023 SNOPR, AHAM expressed concerns about the 
timing of ongoing home appliance rulemakings. Specifically, AHAM 
commented that DOE to abide by Process Rule requirements and take 
action to fully review the cumulative impacts its rules will have on 
manufacturers and consumers, with this review including examination of 
the potential impact on the economy and inflation as a result of the 
unprecedented stringency and close compliance dates of DOE's recently 
proposed standards. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 44-47) AHAM commented that 
DOE's proposed levels for consumer clothes dryers, residential clothes 
washers, consumer conventional cooking products, refrigerators, 
refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and its final rule for room air 
conditioners will require significant redesign of products--and in the 
case of gas cooking tops and top-load residential clothes washers, the 
complete redesign of entire product lines. (Id.) AHAM repeated its 
request that DOE acknowledge this cumulative regulatory burden and take 
action, such as spacing out its final rules, allowing more lead-time by 
issuing final rules well before publishing them in the Federal 
Register, and reducing the stringency of standards such that fewer 
percentages of products would require complete re-design. (Id.) AHAM 
has submitted similar comments to other ongoing home appliance 
rulemakings. As AHAM is a key signatory of the Joint Agreement, DOE 
understands that the compliance dates recommended in the Joint 
Agreement would help reduce cumulative regulatory burden. These 
compliance dates help relieve concern on the part of some manufacturers 
about their ability to allocate sufficient resources to comply with 
multiple concurrent new and amended standards. The Joint Agreement also 
provides additional years of regulatory certainty for manufacturers and 
their suppliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ The analyses for residential clothes washers (88 FR 
13520); consumer clothes dryers (87 FR 51734); consumer conventional 
cooking products (88 FR 6818); dishwashers (88 FR 32514); and 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (88 FR 12452) 
utilized a 2027 compliance year for analysis at the proposed rule 
stage. Miscellaneous refrigeration products (88 FR 12452) utilized a 
2029 compliance year for the NOPR analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer 
conventional cooking products are shown in Table V.43 and Table V.44.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.083


[[Page 11540]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.084

    The Secretary also concludes that an amended standard is not 
technologically feasible and economically justified for electric open 
(coil) element cooking tops. Therefore, DOE is not adopting any energy 
conservation standards for electric open (coil) element cooking tops.
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
    The benefits and costs of the adopted standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the adopted standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less 
energy), minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the 
annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits.
    Table V.45 shows the annualized values for consumer conventional 
cooking products under the Recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$. 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 
adopted 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 adopted 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.

[[Page 11541]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.085


[[Page 11542]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE24.086

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan

    Manufacturers, including importers, must use product-specific 
certification templates to certify compliance to DOE. For consumer 
conventional cooking products, the certification template reflects the 
general certification requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.12 and the 
product-specific requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.23.
1. Sampling and Test Procedure Repeatability
    In manufacturer interviews, multiple manufacturers expressed 
concern about the variability of cooking top test results and the 
potential impact on certifying compliance, but none provided 
information regarding how DOE should consider such variability in its 
analysis of potential energy conservation standards for conventional 
cooking tops. DOE notes that as part of the August 2022 TP Final Rule, 
a sampling plan for conventional cooking tops was established at 10 CFR 
429.23, requiring that a sample of sufficient size be tested to ensure 
that any represented value of IAEC be greater than the mean of the 
sample or than the upper 97.5-percent confidence limit of the true mean 
divided by 1.05. DOE did not propose to amend the product-specific 
certification requirements for these products in the February 2023 
SNOPR because it did not have information regarding whether the 
confidence limit should be adjusted. 88 FR 6818, 6895.
    DOE sought comment and data to potentially re-evaluate the sampling 
plan for cooking tops in the context of any potential performance 
standards for these products. Id.
    Consumers' Research noted that the DOE test method for conventional 
cooking tops was adopted in September 2022 and commented that DOE does 
not have any significant real-world data on how current gas cooking 
tops would perform under this testing and sampling method. (Consumers' 
Research, No. 2267 at pp. 3-4)
    AHAM asserted that DOE regulations require manufacturers to test 
more than one unit in an effort to account for variation. (AHAM, No. 
2285 at p. 11) AHAM commented that the data it presented in its 
comments coupled with DOE's findings related to test procedure 
variation should be considered in the context of certification and 
enforcement. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE should ensure that its rules 
recognize the variation in this particular case, which exceeds that of 
other test procedures, and should account for that fact--which its own 
data and analysis demonstrate--rather than ignore it. (Id.)
    DOE notes that it neither received nor is it aware of any new data 
in response to the February 2023 SNOPR upon which to re-evaluate the 
sampling plan for conventional cooking tops established at 10 CFR 
429.23.
2. Single-Zone Conventional Cooking Tops
    DOE notes that some conventional cooking tops are distributed in 
commerce with only a single cooking zone with a relatively high input 
power for electric cooking tops or high burner input rate for gas 
cooking tops. Single-cooking zone cooking tops do not provide the 
ability for consumers to cook multiple food loads at the same time and, 
particularly for gas cooking tops, may not operate over the full range 
of input rates associated with all typical cooking processes for which 
a conventional cooking top is used (e.g., boiling, saut[eacute]ing, 
simmering, reheating) or accommodate the complete range of typical 
cookware sizes. To achieve this full functionality, conventional 
cooking tops with single cooking zones are typically used in 
conjunction with one or more additional conventional cooking tops to 
provide the consumer with the choice of the number and type of cooking 
zones to use. Indeed, DOE observes that manufacturers of single-zone 
cooking tops that are not portable conventional cooking tops also 
typically manufacture and market comparable dual-zone cooking tops with 
similar construction and design features, and consumers may choose to 
install non-portable single-zone cooking units in

[[Page 11543]]

combination with one or more of such comparable dual-zone units to 
achieve full cooking functionality. As a result, DOE stated in the 
February 2023 SNOPR that it expects that evaluating the IAEC of a 
single-zone non-portable cooking top by itself would not be 
representative of the average use of the product, and therefore 
proposed that a more representative value of IAEC would be based on a 
tested configuration of the typical combination of a single-zone 
cooking top paired with one or more additional cooking tops, such that 
the combination of conventional cooking tops in aggregate provides 
complete functionality to the consumer. 88 FR 6818, 6837.
    Based on DOE's review of commercially available products, single-
zone and dual-zone non-portable cooking tops typically range in width 
from 12 inches to 15 inches; DOE therefore proposed in the February 
2023 SNOPR that the most representative pairing for the tested 
configuration of a single-zone cooking top would be the combination of 
one single-zone cooking top and one comparable dual-zone cooking top, 
because the overall width of the combination would not exceed the width 
of typical conventional cooking tops with four to six cooking zones (24 
inches to 36 inches) and because this is the minimum number of such 
cooking tops that would ensure complete functionality. Id. Based on its 
expectation that consumers will select, to the extent possible, 
matching products for this combination, DOE proposed to define the 
tested configuration of a single-zone non-portable cooking top as the 
single-zone unit along with the same manufacturer's dual-zone non-
portable cooking top unit within the same product class and with 
similar design characteristics (e.g., construction materials, user 
interface), and use the same heating technology (i.e., gas flame, 
electric resistive heating, or electric inductive heating) and energy 
source (e.g., voltage, gas type). Id. DOE stated that it expects that 
these products comprising the test configuration typically would be 
marketed as being within the same ``product line'' by manufacturers. 
Id. In instances where the manufacturer's product line contains more 
than one dual-zone non-portable cooking top unit, DOE proposed that the 
dual-zone unit with the least energy consumption, as measured using 
appendix I1, be selected for the tested configuration, which along with 
the single-zone counterpart, would span the full range of expected per-
cooking zone energy efficiency performance. Id.
    In the approach DOE proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR, the 
representative IAEC of the single-zone non-portable cooking top would 
factor in the performance of the two additional cooking zones included 
in the dual-zone cooking top that is part of the tested configuration. 
Id. That is, the IAEC would be based on the average active mode 
performance of the three cooking zones comprising the tested 
configuration. Because the single-zone non-portable cooking top 
contains one of the three burners, while the comparable dual-zone 
cooking top contains two, DOE additionally proposed that the IAEC of 
the single-zone non-portable cooking top unit under consideration be 
calculated as the weighted average of the measured IAEC of the single-
zone cooking top and the IAEC dual-zone cooking top in the tested 
configuration, using the number of cooking zones as the basis for the 
weighting factors; i.e., the single-zone IAEC would have a weighting of 
\1/3\ and the dual-zone IAEC would have a weighting of \2/3\. Id. 
Recognizing that the dual-zone cooking top in the tested configuration 
would already be separately tested to determine its IAEC value for 
certification purposes, to minimize testing burden associated with this 
approach, DOE proposed that the represented IAEC value of the dual-zone 
cooking top (determined separately) would be used in the calculation of 
the single-zone cooking top's represented IAEC value (i.e., DOE would 
not require the dual-zone cooking top to be tested again for the 
purpose of determining the represented IAEC value of the single-zone 
cooking top). Id. DOE stated that it expected that this approach would 
produce results that are most representative for the tested 
configuration. Id. Further, DOE proposed that if there is no dual-zone 
non-portable cooking top within the same product class and with similar 
construction and design features as the single-zone non-portable 
cooking top being tested, then consumers are likely to purchase and 
install the single-zone cooking top for use on its own; in that case, 
the most representative IAEC of the single-zone cooking top is the IAEC 
of that product as measured according to appendix I1. Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposed tested configuration and 
determination of representative IAEC for single-zone non-portable 
cooking tops. Id.
    In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE additionally proposed that a 
cooking top basic model is an individual cooking top model and does not 
include any combinations of cooking top models that may be installed 
together. Id. Accordingly, as part of DOE's proposal, each individual 
cooking top model that may be installed in combination would be rated 
as a separate basic model, and any combination of such cooking top 
models that are typically installed in combination would not itself 
need to have a separate representation as its own basic model. Id. at 
88 FR 6837-6838. In other words, DOE stated that it did not expect 
combinations to be separately represented or certified to the 
Department as their own basic models. Id. at 88 FR 6838. DOE stated 
that this proposal is consistent with the current definition of a basic 
model at 10 CFR 430.2, which specifies that the basic model includes 
all units of a given type of covered product (or class thereof) 
manufactured by one manufacturer; having the same primary energy 
source; and, which have essentially identical electrical, physical, and 
functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect energy 
consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, or water efficiency. 
Id. Therefore, DOE stated that it believed this clarification would be 
helpful to provide specific context for cooking tops, but that DOE was 
not proposing specific amendments to the basic model definition in this 
rule. Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposal to not define ``basic model'' 
with respect to cooking products or cooking tops, and on possible 
definitions for ``basic model'' with respect to cooking products or 
cooking tops that could be used if DOE were to determine such a 
definition is necessary. Id.
    The Joint Agreement signatories suggested that the IAEC calculation 
of a single-zone cooking top be based on the testing of the single-zone 
unit by itself, stating that this methodology would reduce burden, 
simplify the certification process for single-zone cooking tops, and 
remove any ambiguity associated with determining which dual-zone models 
are ``comparable.'' (Joint Agreement signatories, No. 12814 at p. 7)
    In accordance with the Joint Agreement signatories' recommendation, 
for this direct final rule, DOE is not implementing any specific 
methodology for non-portable single-zone conventional cooking tops.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

    Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O.

[[Page 11544]]

13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 
21, 2011) and E.O. 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' 88 FR 
21879 (April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by 
law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that 
some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with 
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other 
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative 
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including 
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent 
feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the 
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; 
and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE 
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office 
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques 
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might 
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. 
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final regulatory action is 
consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this final regulatory action constitutes a 
``significant regulatory action'' within the scope of section 3(f) of 
E.O. 12866. DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the 
underlying analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the final 
regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a 
quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the 
underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an 
explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the 
identified potential alternatives. These assessments are summarized in 
this preamble and further detail can be found in the technical support 
document for this rulemaking.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
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 is not obligated to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 
for this rulemaking because there is not a requirement to publish a 
general notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative 
Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603(a). As discussed previously, 
DOE has determined that the Joint Agreement meets the necessary 
requirements under EPCA to issue this direct final rule for energy 
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products under 
the procedures in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). DOE notes that the NOPR for 
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking 
products published elsewhere in this Federal Register contains an IRFA.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (``PRA''), a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information by a Federal agency unless that collection of information 
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
    OMB Control Number 1910-1400, Compliance Statement Energy/Water 
Conservation Standards for Appliances, is currently valid and assigned 
to the certification reporting requirements applicable to covered 
equipment, including consumer conventional cooking products.
    DOE's certification and compliance activities ensure accurate and 
comprehensive information about the energy and water use 
characteristics of covered products and covered equipment sold in the 
United States. Manufacturers of all covered products and covered 
equipment must submit a certification report before a basic model is 
distributed in commerce, annually thereafter, and if the basic model is 
redesigned in such a manner to increase the consumption or decrease the 
efficiency of the basic model such that the certified rating is no 
longer supported by the test data. Additionally, manufacturers must 
report when production of a basic model has ceased and is no longer 
offered for sale as part of the next annual certification report 
following such cessation. DOE requires the manufacturer of any covered 
product or covered equipment to establish, maintain, and retain the 
records of certification reports, of the underlying test data for all 
certification testing, and of any other testing conducted to satisfy 
the requirements of part 429, part 430, and/or part 431. Certification 
reports provide DOE and consumers with comprehensive, up-to-date 
efficiency information and support effective enforcement.
    Revised certification data will be required for gas cooking tops 
and gas ovens at the time of compliance with this direct final rule. 
New certification data will be required for electric cooking tops and 
electric ovens at the time of compliance with this direct final rule. 
However, DOE is not amending or creating new certification or reporting 
requirements for consumer conventional cooking products in this direct 
final rule. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to establish 
certification requirements and reporting for consumer conventional 
cooking products under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and 
equipment certification. DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number 
1910-1400 at that time, as necessary.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(``NEPA''), DOE has analyzed this rule

[[Page 11545]]

in accordance with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR 
part 1021). DOE has determined that this rule qualifies for categorical 
exclusion under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1 because it 
is a rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for 
consumer products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions 
identified in B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that 
require further environmental analysis, and it meets the requirements 
for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. 
Therefore, DOE has determined that promulgation of this rule is not a 
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment within the meaning of NEPA, and does not require an 
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism 
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735.
    DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it would not 
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as 
to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this 
direct final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such 
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 
U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is required by Executive 
Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to 
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and 
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general 
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), 
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive 
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) 
clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies 
any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear 
legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and 
burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 
adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues 
affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued 
by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it 
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
this direct final rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published 
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation 
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at 
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    This rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor 
is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any 
one year by the private sector. As a result, the analytical 
requirements of UMRA do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
Although this direct final rule would not have any impact on the 
autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution as defined, this 
rule could impact a family's well-being. When developing a Family 
Policymaking Assessment, agencies must assess whether: (1) the action 
strengthens or erodes the stability or safety of the family and, 
particularly, the marital commitment; (2) the action strengthens or 
erodes the authority and rights of parents in the education, nurture, 
and supervision of their children; (3) the action helps the family 
perform its functions, or substitutes governmental activity for the 
function; (4) the action increases or decreases disposable income or 
poverty of families and children; (5) the proposed benefits of the 
action justify the financial impact on the family; (6) the action may 
be carried out by State or local government or by the family; and 
whether (7) the action establishes an implicit or explicit policy 
concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal 
responsibility of youth, and the norms of society.
    DOE has considered how the proposed benefits of this rule compare 
to the possible financial impact on a family (the only factor listed 
that is relevant to this final rule). As part of its rulemaking 
process, DOE must determine whether the energy conservation standards 
contained in this direct final rule are economically justified. As 
discussed in section V.C.1 of this document, DOE has determined that 
the standards are economically justified because the benefits to 
consumers far outweigh the costs to manufacturers. Families will also 
see LCC savings as a result of this final rule.

[[Page 11546]]

Moreover, as discussed further in section V.B.1 of this document, DOE 
has determined that for low-income households, average LCC savings and 
PBP at the considered efficiency levels are improved (i.e., higher LCC 
savings and lower payback period) as compared to the average for all 
households. Further, the standards will also result in climate and 
health benefits for families.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 
18, 1988), DOE has determined that this rule would not result in any 
takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to 
the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to 
review most disseminations of information to the public under 
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to 
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving 
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this direct final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and 
has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    DOE has concluded that this regulatory action, which sets forth new 
and amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional 
cooking products, is not a significant energy action because the 
standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as 
such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 
Statement of Energy Effects on this direct final rule.

L. Information Quality

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information 
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear 
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of 
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses 
that are typically used and prepared a report describing that peer 
review.\144\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and 
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and 
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the 
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. 
Because available data, models, and technological understanding have 
changed since 2007, DOE has engaged with the National Academy of 
Sciences to review DOE's analytical methodologies to ascertain whether 
modifications are needed to improve DOE's analyses. DOE is in the 
process of evaluating the resulting report.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer 
Review Report'' is available at the following website: 
www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed July 10, 
2023).
    \145\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will 
state that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
determined that this rule meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this direct 
final rule.

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, 
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 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 amends part 430 of 
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

[[Page 11547]]

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 a definition for 
``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
                  Product class                        annual energy
                                                    consumption (IAEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking    207 kWh/year.
 Tops.
(B) Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top           207 kWh/year.
 Component of Combined Cooking Products.
(C) Gas Standalone Cooking Tops.................  1,770 kBtu/year.
(D) Gas Cooking Top Component of Combined         1,770 kBtu/year.
 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. 2024-02008 Filed 2-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P