Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products, 6818-6904 [2023-00610]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6818
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005]
RIN 1904–AD15
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer
Conventional Cooking Products
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking and
announcement of public meeting.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy
conservation standards for various
consumer products and certain
commercial and industrial equipment,
including consumer conventional
cooking products. EPCA also requires
the U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’)
to periodically determine whether morestringent standards would be
technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings. In this
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘SNOPR’’), DOE proposes
new and amended energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional
cooking products, and also announces a
public meeting to receive comment on
these proposed standards and associated
analyses and results.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a public
meeting via webinar on Tuesday,
January 31, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00
p.m. See section VII of this document,
‘‘Public Participation,’’ for webinar
registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar
participants.
Comments: DOE will accept
comments, data, and information
regarding this SNOPR no later than
April 3, 2023.
Comments regarding the likely
competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the
Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before
March 3, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE–
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
2014–BT–STD–0005, by any of the
following methods:
Email: ConventionalCooking
Products2014STD0005@ee.doe.gov.
Include the docket number EERE–2014–
BT–STD–0005 in the subject line of the
message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact
disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
not all documents listed in the index
may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public
disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2014-BT-STD-0005. The docket web
page contains instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket. See section VII
of this document for information on
how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General
to provide DOE a written determination
of whether the proposed standard is
likely to lessen competition. The U.S.
Department of Justice Antitrust Division
invites input from market participants
and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the
proposed standard. Interested persons
may contact the Division at
energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or
before the date specified in the DATES
section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’
line of your email the title and Docket
Number of this proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC–33, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–
6122. Email: Melanie.Lampton@
hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in the public meeting, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
Consumer Conventional Cooking
Products
3. Basis for This Proposed Rule
C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
C. Test Procedure
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and
Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to
Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related
Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
c. Evaluated Product Classes
2. Technology Options
a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
c. Conventional Ovens
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
c. Conventional Ovens
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
2. Cost Analysis
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
4. Manufacturer Selling Price
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy and Gas Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model
and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Markup Scenarios
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in
DOE’s Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous
Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions
Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual
Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs
and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of
Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for Consumer Conventional
Cooking Products Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the
Proposed Standards
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling
Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is
Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description of Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance
Requirements Including Differences in
Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of
Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With
Other Rules and Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
6819
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’), 1 authorizes DOE to regulate
the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6317). Title III, Part B of EPCA 2
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6309). These products include
consumer conventional cooking
products, the subject of this rulemaking.
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or
amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)). Furthermore, the new or
amended standard must result in a
significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). EPCA also
provides that not later than six years
after issuance of any final rule
establishing or amending a standard,
DOE must publish either a notice of
determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or
a notice of proposed rulemaking
including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)).
In accordance with these and other
statutory provisions discussed in this
document, DOE proposes new and
amended energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional cooking
products. Per its authority in 42 U.S.C.
6295(h)(2), DOE proposes to remove the
existing prescriptive standard for gas
cooking tops prohibiting a constant
burning pilot light. Instead, for
conventional cooking tops, DOE
proposes performance standards only,
shown in Table I.1 which are the
maximum allowable integrated annual
energy consumption (‘‘IAEC’’) and
expressed in kilowatt-hours per year
(‘‘kWh/year’’) for electric cooking tops
and thousand British thermal units per
year (‘‘kBtu/year’’) for gas cooking tops.
The IAEC includes active mode, standby
mode, and off mode energy use. These
proposed standards for conventional
cooking tops, if adopted, would apply to
all product classes listed in Table I.1
and manufactured in, or imported into,
the United States starting on the date
three years after the publication of any
final rule for this rulemaking. DOE notes
that constant burning pilot lights, which
are currently prohibited under the
existing prescriptive standard for gas
cooking tops, 10 CFR 430.32(j), consume
approximately 2,000 kBtu/year. While
DOE’s proposal would remove this
prescriptive requirement from its
regulations, DOE notes that, based on its
review of the existing prescriptive
standard prohibiting constant burning
pilots for gas cooking tops, the proposed
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6820
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
performance standards of 1,204 kBtu per
year for gas cooking tops would not be
achievable by products if they were to
incorporate a constant burning pilot.
TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING TOPS
Maximum integrated annual energy
consumption (IAEC)
Product class
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops ...................................................................................
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops .........................................................................................
Gas Cooking Tops ..........................................................................................................................
For conventional ovens, the proposed
standard is a prescriptive design
requirement for the control system of
the oven. Conventional ovens shall not
be equipped with a control system that
uses a linear power supply. (See Table
I.2). These proposed standards, if
adopted, would apply to all
conventional ovens manufactured in, or
imported into, the United States starting
on the date three years after the
publication of the final rule for this
rulemaking. DOE also notes that the
current prescriptive standards for
199 kWh/year.
207 kWh/year.
1,204 kBtu/year.
conventional gas ovens prohibiting
constant burning pilot lights would
continue to be applicable. (10 CFR
430.32(j)). Table I.2 provides a summary
of the proposed standards for
conventional ovens.
TABLE I.2—PROPOSED PRESCRIPTIVE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL OVENS
Product class
Current standard
Current SNOPR proposed standards
Electric Standard, Freestanding ......
Electric Standard, Built-In/Slide-In.
Electric Self-Clean, Freestanding.
Electric Self-Clean, Built-In/Slide-In.
Gas Standard, Freestanding ...........
Gas Standard, Built-In/Slide-In.
Gas Self-Clean, Freestanding.
Gas Self-Clean, Built-In/Slide-In.
None ..............................................
Shall not be equipped with a control system that uses linear power
supply.*
No constant burning pilot light .......
The control system for gas ovens shall:
(1) Not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light; and
(2) Not be equipped with a linear power supply.*
* A linear power supply produces unregulated as well as regulated power. The unregulated portion of a linear power supply typically consists of
a transformer that steps alternating current (‘‘AC’’) line voltage down, a voltage rectifier circuit for AC to direct current (‘‘DC’’) conversion, and a
capacitor to produce unregulated, direct current output. Linear power supplies are described in section IV.C.1.b of this SNOPR.
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
Table I.3 presents DOE’s evaluation of
the economic impacts of the proposed
standards, represented by trial standard
level (‘‘TSL’’) 2, on consumers of
conventional cooking products, as
measured by the average life-cycle cost
(‘‘LCC’’) savings and the simple payback
period (‘‘PBP’’).3 The shipmentweighted average LCC savings are
positive for all product classes, and the
shipment-weighted PBP is less than the
average lifetime of consumer
conventional cooking products, which
is estimated to be 16.8 years for electric
cooking products and 14.5 years for gas
cooking products (see section IV.F.6 of
this document).
TABLE I.3—IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF CONVENTIONAL COOKING
PRODUCTS
Average LCC savings
(2021$)
Product class
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops * .........................................................................
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops ..................................................................................
Gas Cooking Tops ...................................................................................................................
Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding ...................................................................................
Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ...............................................................................
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding ................................................................................
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In .............................................................................
Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding ........................................................................................
Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ....................................................................................
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding ......................................................................................
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ..................................................................................
Shipment-weighted Average ** ................................................................................................
Simple payback period
(years)
$0.00
13.29
21.89
0.99
0.95
1.02
1.01
0.65
0.59
0.70
0.60
6.75
* The entry ‘‘n.a.’’ means not applicable because the standard at the proposed TSL is the baseline.
** Results are weighted by projected shipments of the compliance year (2027).
3 The average LCC savings refer to consumers that
are affected by a standard and are measured relative
to the efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case, which depicts the market in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
baseline product (see section IV.C of this
document).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
n.a.
0.6
5.0
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.0
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the
proposed standards on consumers is
described in section IV.F of this
document.
B. Impact on Manufacturers
The industry net present value
(‘‘INPV’’) is the sum of the discounted
cash flows to the industry from the base
year through the end of the analysis
period (2022–2056). Using a real
discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE
estimates that the INPV for
manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products in the
case without new and amended
standards is $1,607 million in 2021
dollars. Under the proposed standards,
the change in INPV is estimated to range
from –9.6 percent to –9.4 percent, which
is approximately ¥$154.8 million to
¥$150.4 million. In order to bring
products into compliance with new and
amended standards, it is estimated that
the industry would incur total
conversion costs of $183.4 million.
DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the
proposed standards on manufacturers is
described in section IV.J of this
document. The analytic results of the
manufacturer impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’)
are presented in section V.B.2 of this
document.
C. National Benefits and Costs 4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
DOE’s analyses indicate that the
proposed energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional cooking
products would save a significant
amount of energy. Relative to the case
without new and amended standards,
the lifetime energy savings for consumer
conventional cooking products
purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the anticipated year of
compliance with the new and amended
standards (2027–2056) amount to 0.46
quadrillion British thermal units
(‘‘Btu’’), or quads.5 This represents a
savings of 3.4 percent relative to the
energy use of these products in the case
4 All monetary values in this document are
expressed in 2021 dollars.
5 The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’)
energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the
energy consumed in extracting, processing, and
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas,
petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more
complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency
standards. For more information on the FFC metric,
see section IV.H.1 of this document.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
without amended standards (referred to
as the ‘‘no-new-standards case’’).
The cumulative net present value
(‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer benefits of
the proposed standards for consumer
conventional cooking products ranges
from $0.65 billion (at a 7-percent
discount rate) to $1.71 billion (at a 3percent discount rate). This NPV
expresses the estimated total value of
future operating-cost savings minus the
estimated increased product and
installation costs for consumer
conventional cooking products
purchased in 2027–2056.
In addition, the proposed standards
for consumer conventional cooking
products are projected to yield
significant environmental benefits. DOE
estimates that the proposed standards
would result in cumulative emission
reductions (over the same period as for
energy savings) of 21.9 million metric
tons (‘‘Mt’’) 6 of carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’),
2.2 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide
(‘‘SO2’’), 51.8 thousand tons of nitrogen
oxides (‘‘NOX’’), 244.9 thousand tons of
methane (‘‘CH4’’), 0.1 thousand tons of
nitrous oxide (‘‘N2O’’), and 0.01 tons of
mercury (‘‘Hg’’).7
DOE estimates the value of climate
benefits from a reduction in greenhouse
gases (‘‘GHG’’) using four different
estimates of the social cost of CO2 (‘‘SCCO2’’), the social cost of methane (‘‘SCCH4’’), and the social cost of nitrous
oxide (‘‘SC-N2O’’). Together these
represent the social cost of GHG (‘‘SCGHG’’).8 DOE used interim SC-GHG
6 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons.
Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented
in short tons.
7 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to
the no-new-standards case, which reflects key
assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2022
(‘‘AEO2022’’). AEO2022 represents current federal
and state legislation and final implementation of
regulations as of the time of its preparation. See
section IV.K of this document for further discussion
of AEO2022 assumptions that effect air pollutant
emissions.
8 On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal
government’s emergency motion for stay pending
appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary
injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–
1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth
Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no
longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal
government’s appeal of that injunction or a further
court order. Among other things, the preliminary
injunction enjoined the defendants in the case from
‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or
relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social
cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6821
values developed by an Interagency
Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases (‘‘IWG’’).9 The
derivation of these values is discussed
in section IV.L of this document. For
presentational purposes, the climate
benefits associated with the average SCGHG at a 3-percent discount rate are
estimated to be $1.17 billion. DOE does
not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate and it emphasizes the
importance and value of considering the
benefits calculated using all four SCGHG estimates.
DOE estimated the monetary health
benefits from SO2 and NOX emissions
reductions using benefit per ton
estimates from the scientific literature,
as discussed in section IV.L of this
document. DOE estimated the present
value of the health benefits would be
$0.61 billion using a 7-percent discount
rate, and $1.63 billion using a 3-percent
discount rate.10 DOE is currently only
monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NOX)
ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to
monetize other effects such as health
benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions.
Table I.4 summarizes the economic
benefits and costs expected to result
from the proposed standards for
consumer conventional cooking
products. There are other important
unquantified effects, including certain
unquantified climate benefits,
unquantified public health benefits from
the reduction of toxic air pollutants,
direct PM2.5 and other emissions that
affect both indoor and outdoor air
quality, unquantified energy security
benefits, and distributional effects,
among others.
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to
monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has
reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and
presents monetized benefits where appropriate and
permissible under law.
9 See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost
of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide.
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990,
Washington, DC, February 2021.
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/
TechnicalSupportDocument_
SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
10 DOE estimates the economic value of these
emissions reductions resulting from the considered
TSLs for the purpose of complying with the
requirements of Executive Order 12866.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6822
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I.4—SUMMARY OF MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR
CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS
[TSL 2]
Billion 2021$
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .....................................................................................................................................................
Climate Benefits * .................................................................................................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .................................................................................................................................................................................
Total Monetized Benefits † ..................................................................................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ..............................................................................................................................................
Net Monetized Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................................
2.28
1.17
1.63
5.08
0.56
4.51
7% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .....................................................................................................................................................
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ..................................................................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .................................................................................................................................................................................
Total Monetized Benefits † ..................................................................................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ..............................................................................................................................................
Net Monetized Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................................
0.95
1.17
0.61
2.74
0.31
2.43
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 2027—2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027—2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
(SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of
this document). Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022,
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the Federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February
11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the
preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order.
Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying
upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has
reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as
health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
† Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes,
total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but
DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated
using all four SC-GHG estimates.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
The benefits and costs of the proposed
standards can also be expressed in terms
of annualized values. The monetary
values for the total annualized net
benefits are (1) the reduced consumer
operating costs, minus (2) the increase
in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of
climate and health benefits of emission
reductions, all annualized.11
The national operating savings are
domestic private U.S. consumer
monetary savings that occur as a result
of purchasing the covered products and
are measured for the lifetime of
consumer conventional cooking
products shipped in 2027–2056. The
benefits associated with reduced
emissions achieved as a result of the
proposed standards are also calculated
based on the lifetime of consumer
conventional cooking products shipped
in 2027–2056. Total benefits for both the
3-percent and 7-percent cases are
presented using the average GHG social
costs with 3-percent discount rate.
Estimates of SC–GHG are presented for
all four discount rates in section IV.L of
this document.
Table I.5 presents the total estimated
monetized benefits and costs associated
with the proposed standard, expressed
in terms of annualized values. The
results under the primary estimate are
as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs and health
benefits from reduced NOX and SO2
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
cost of the standards proposed in this
rule is $32.5 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $100.8
million in reduced equipment operating
costs, $67.0 million in climate benefits,
and $64.9 million in health benefits. In
this case, the net benefit would amount
to $200.3 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of
the proposed standards is $32.2 million
per year in increased equipment costs,
while the estimated annual benefits are
$130.7 million in reduced operating
costs, $67.0 million in climate benefits,
and $93.8 million in health benefits. In
this case, the net benefit would amount
to $259.2 million per year.
11 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits
into annualized values, DOE calculated a present
value in 2022, the year used for discounting the
NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the
benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated
with each year’s shipments in the year in which the
shipments occur (e.g., 2030), and then discounted
the present value from each year to 2022. Using the
present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual
payment over a 30-year period, starting in the
compliance year, that yields the same present value.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
6823
TABLE I.5—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER
CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS
[TSL 2]
Million 2021$/year
Primary
estimate
Low-netbenefits
estimate
High-netbenefits
estimate
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .............................................................................................
Climate Benefits * .........................................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .........................................................................................................................
Total Monetized Benefits † ..........................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ......................................................................................
Net Monetized Benefits ...............................................................................................................
130.7
67.0
93.8
291.5
32.2
259.2
124.7
65.3
91.4
281.4
36.1
245.2
137.9
68.4
95.6
301.8
31.4
270.4
100.8
67.0
64.9
232.8
32.5
200.3
96.5
65.3
63.4
225.3
35.8
189.5
105.8
68.4
66.0
240.2
31.8
208.4
7% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .............................................................................................
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ..........................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .........................................................................................................................
Total Monetized Benefits † ..........................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ......................................................................................
Net Monetized Benefits ...............................................................................................................
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 2027–2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027–2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High
Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic
Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in
the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are
explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational
purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department
does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using
all four SC-GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the Federal government’s emergency
motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D.
La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting,
employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Aa reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate
and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 and
(for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions
in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
DOE’s analysis of the national impacts
of the proposed standards is described
in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this
document.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
D. Conclusion
DOE has tentatively concluded that
the proposed standards represent the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and
would result in the significant
conservation of energy. Specifically,
with regards to technological feasibility,
products achieving these standard levels
are already commercially available for
all product classes covered by this
proposal. As for economic justification,
DOE’s analysis shows that the benefits
of the proposed standard exceed, to a
great extent, the burdens of the
proposed standards. That conclusion
remains true under any reasonable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
analytical assumption—i.e., the
proposed standards are net beneficial
under any discount rate (both for
climate and non-climate benefits and
costs), any cost scenario, and any other
scenario DOE analyzed. Moreover,
because consumer operating cost
savings and health benefits alone greatly
exceed costs under all such assumptions
and scenarios, DOE noted that this
conclusion does not depend on climate
benefits (though DOE’s estimates of
climate benefits remain important and
robust).
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs and NOX
and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3percent discount rate case for GHG
social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for consumer
conventional cooking products is $32.5
million per year in increased product
costs, while the estimated annual
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
benefits are $100.8 million in reduced
product operating costs, $67.0 million
in climate benefits and $64.9 million in
health benefits. The net monetized
benefit amounts to $200.3 million per
year.
The significance of energy savings
offered by a new or amended energy
conservation standard cannot be
determined without knowledge of the
specific circumstances surrounding a
given rulemaking.12 For example, some
covered products and equipment have
substantial energy consumption occur
during periods of peak energy demand.
The impacts of these products on the
energy infrastructure can be more
pronounced than products with
12 Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for
Consideration in New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for
Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial
Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6824
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
relatively constant demand.
Accordingly, DOE evaluates the
significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis.
As previously mentioned, the
standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings of
0.46 quads FFC, the equivalent of the
electricity use of 19 million residential
homes in one year. The NPV of
consumer benefit for these projected
energy savings is $0.65 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.71
billion using a discount rate of 3
percent. The cumulative emissions
reductions associated with these energy
savings are 21.9 Mt of CO2, 2.2 thousand
tons of SO2, 51.8 thousand tons of NOX,
0.01 tons of Hg, 244.9 thousand tons of
CH4, and 0.1 thousand tons of N2O. The
estimated monetary value of the climate
benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at
a 3-percent discount rate) is $1.17
billion. The estimated monetary value of
the health benefits from reduced SO2
and NOX emissions is $0.61 billion
using a 7-percent discount rate and
$1.63 billion using a 3-percent discount
rate. As such, DOE has initially
determined the energy savings from the
proposed standard levels are
‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed
discussion of the basis for these
tentative conclusions is contained in the
remainder of this document and the
accompanying technical support
document (‘‘TSD’’).13
DOE also considered more-stringent
energy efficiency levels as potential
standards, and is still considering them
in this rulemaking. However, DOE has
tentatively concluded that the potential
burdens of the more-stringent energy
efficiency levels would outweigh the
projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public
comments DOE receives in response to
this document and related information
collected and analyzed during the
course of this rulemaking effort, DOE
may adopt energy efficiency levels
presented in this document that are
either higher or lower than the proposed
standards, or some combination of
level(s) that incorporate the proposed
standards in part.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well
as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment
13 The TSD is available in the docket for this
rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2014-BT-STD-0005/document.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
of standards for consumer conventional
cooking products.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of
EPCA established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles.
These products include consumer
conventional cooking products, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(10)). EPCA prescribed energy
conservation standards for these
products (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)), and
directs DOE to conduct future
rulemakings to determine whether to
amend these standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(h)(2)). EPCA further provides that,
not later than six years after the
issuance of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, DOE must publish
either a notice of determination that
standards for the product do not need to
be amended, or a notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) including new
proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)).
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the
establishment of Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4)
certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA specifically include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6296).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6297(a)–(c)). DOE may, however, grant
waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions set forth under EPCA.
(See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).
Subject to certain criteria and
conditions, DOE is required to develop
test procedures to measure the energy
efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of each covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(r)).
Manufacturers of covered products must
use the prescribed DOE test procedure
as the basis for certifying to DOE that
their products comply with the
applicable energy conservation
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
standards adopted under EPCA and
when making representations to the
public regarding the energy use or
efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C.
6293(c) & 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to
determine whether the products comply
with standards adopted pursuant to
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test
procedures for conventional cooking
tops appear at title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 430,
subpart B, appendix I1 (‘‘appendix I1’’).
There are currently no DOE test
procedures for conventional ovens.
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered products,
including consumer conventional
cooking products. Any new or amended
standard for a covered product must be
designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that
the Secretary of Energy (‘‘Secretary’’)
determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) & 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any
standard that would not result in the
significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a
standard if DOE determines by rule that
the standard is not technologically
feasible or economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). In deciding
whether a proposed standard is
economically justified, DOE must
determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). DOE must make this
determination after receiving comments
on the proposed standard, and by
considering, to the greatest extent
practicable, the following seven
statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the
standard on the manufacturers and on
the consumers of the products subject to
such standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the covered products in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the
price of, or in the initial charges for, or
maintenance expenses of, the covered
products which are likely to result from
the imposition of the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of
energy (or as applicable, water) savings
likely to result directly from the
imposition of the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered products
likely to result from the imposition of
the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
result from the imposition of the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and
water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary
considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)).
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable
presumption that a standard is
economically justified if the Secretary
finds that the additional cost to the
consumer of purchasing a product
complying with an energy conservation
standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings
during the first year that the consumer
will receive as a result of the standard,
as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)).
EPCA also contains what is known as
an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which
prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either
increases the maximum allowable
energy use or decreases the minimum
required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)). Also,
the Secretary may not prescribe an
amended or new standard if interested
persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the
standard is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States in
any covered product type (or class) of
performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the
United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)).
Additionally, EPCA specifies
requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a
covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a
different standard level for a type or
class of product that has the same
function or intended use, if DOE
determines that products within such
group: (A) consume a different kind of
energy from that consumed by other
covered products within such type (or
class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other
products within such type (or class) do
not have and such feature justifies a
higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)). In determining whether a
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard for a group of
products, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility to the consumer of
the feature and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing
such a standard must include an
explanation of the basis on which such
higher or lower level was established.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)).
Finally, pursuant to the amendments
contained in the Energy Independence
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’),
Public Law 110–140, any final rule for
new or amended energy conservation
standards promulgated after July 1,
2010, is required to address standby
mode and off mode energy use. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)). Specifically, when
DOE adopts a standard for a covered
product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of
standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and
off mode energy use into a single
standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt
a separate standard for such energy use
for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)). DOE’s current test
procedures for conventional cooking
tops address standby mode and off
mode energy use. In this rulemaking,
DOE intends to incorporate such energy
use into any amended energy
conservation standards for conventional
cooking tops that it may adopt. As
discussed in section III.C of this
document, DOE does not have a current
test procedure for conventional ovens.
As a result, a performance standard that
addresses standby mode and off mode
energy use is not feasible for
conventional ovens. However, in this
SNOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt
prescriptive design requirements for the
control system of conventional ovens
that would address standby mode and
off mode energy use.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on April 8,
2009 (‘‘April 2009 Final Rule’’), DOE
prescribed the current energy
conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products that
prohibits constant burning pilots for all
gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking
products both with or without an
electrical supply cord) manufactured on
and after April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040.
These standards are set forth in DOE’s
regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)–(2).
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
Consumer Conventional Cooking
Products
The National Appliance Energy
Conservation Act of 1987 (‘‘NAECA’’),
Public Law 100–12, amended EPCA to
establish prescriptive standards for gas
cooking products, requiring gas ranges
and ovens with an electrical supply
cord that are manufactured on or after
January 1, 1990, not to be equipped with
a constant burning pilot light. (42 U.S.C.
6295(h)(1)). NAECA also directed DOE
to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to
determine if more stringent or
additional standards were justified for
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6825
kitchen ranges and ovens. (42 U.S.C.
6295(h)(2)).
DOE undertook the first cycle of these
rulemakings and published a final rule
on September 8, 1998, which found that
no standards were justified for
conventional electric cooking products
at that time. 63 FR 48038. In addition,
partially due to the difficulty of
conclusively demonstrating at that time
that elimination of standing pilots for
conventional gas cooking products
without an electrical supply cord was
economically justified, DOE did not
include amended standards for
conventional gas cooking products in
the final rule. 63 FR 48038, 48039–
48040. For the second cycle of
rulemakings, DOE published the April
2009 Final Rule amending the energy
conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products to
prohibit constant burning pilots for all
gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking
products both with or without an
electrical supply cord) manufactured on
or after April 9, 2012. DOE decided to
not adopt energy conservation standards
pertaining to the cooking efficiency of
conventional electric cooking products
because it determined that such
standards would not be technologically
feasible and economically justified at
that time. 74 FR 16040, 16085.14
As noted, EPCA requires that, not
later than six years after the issuance of
a final rule establishing or amending a
standard, DOE publish a NOPR
proposing new standards or a
notification of determination that the
existing standards do not need to be
amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)). On
February 12, 2014, DOE published a
request for information (‘‘RFI’’)
document (‘‘February 2014 RFI’’) to
initiate the mandatory review process
imposed by EPCA. 79 FR 8337. In
making this determination, DOE must
evaluate whether new or amended
standards would (1) yield a significant
savings in energy use and (2) be both
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B))
On June 10, 2015, DOE published a
NOPR (‘‘June 2015 NOPR’’) proposing
14 As part of the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE
decided not to adopt energy conservation standards
pertaining to the cooking efficiency of microwave
ovens. DOE has since published a final rule on June
17, 2013, adopting energy conservation standards
for microwave oven standby mode and off mode. 78
FR 36316. DOE is not considering energy
conservation standards for microwave ovens as part
of this proposed rule. A separate rulemaking is
underway addressing energy conservation
standards for microwave ovens. See
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD0023/document.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6826
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
new and amended energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional
ovens. 80 FR 33030. In the June 2015
NOPR, DOE noted that it was deferring
its decision regarding whether to adopt
amended energy conservation standards
for conventional cooking tops, pending
further study. 80 FR 33030, 33038–
33040.
On September 2, 2016, DOE
published an SNOPR (‘‘September 2016
SNOPR’’) proposing new and amended
energy conservation standards for
conventional cooking tops based on the
amendments to the test procedure as
proposed in a test procedure SNOPR
published on August 22, 2016 (‘‘August
2016 TP SNOPR;’’ 81 FR 57374). 81 FR
60784. In the September 2016 SNOPR,
DOE also revised its proposal from the
June 2015 NOPR for conventional ovens
from a performance-based standard to a
prescriptive standard given that DOE
had proposed to repeal the test
procedure for conventional ovens in the
August 2016 TP SNOPR. 81 FR 60784,
60793–60794. (The history of the test
procedures for conventional cooking
tops and conventional ovens is
discussed in greater detail in section
III.C of this document.)
On December 14, 2020, DOE
published a notification of proposed
determination (‘‘NOPD’’) proposing not
to amend the energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional
cooking products (‘‘December 2020
NOPD’’). 85 FR 80982. In the December
2020 NOPD, DOE initially determined
that amended energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional
cooking products would not be
economically justified and would not
result in a significant conservation of
energy.
DOE held a public meeting on January
28, 2021, to solicit feedback from
stakeholders concerning the December
2020 NOPD, and received comments in
response to the December 2020 NOPD
from the interested parties listed in
Table II.1.
TABLE II—DECEMBER 2020 NOPD WRITTEN COMMENTS
Commenter(s)
Abbreviation
Henry Adkins .............................................................................................................
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ........................................................
Lamis Ahmad .............................................................................................................
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, collectively, the California Investor-Owned Utilities.
GE Appliances ...........................................................................................................
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer Federation of America, Natural Resources Defense Council.
American Public Gas Association, American Gas Association .................................
Adkins .....................
AHAM .....................
Ahmad ....................
CA IOUs .................
81
84
82
89
Individual.
Trade Association.
Individual.
Utilities.
GEA ........................
Joint Commenters ..
85
87
Joint Gas Associations.
NEEA ......................
86
Manufacturer.
Energy Organizations.
Utility and Trade Association.
Efficiency Organization.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ........................................................................
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.15 To the extent that
interested parties have provided written
comments that are substantively
consistent with any oral comments
provided during the January 28, 2021,
public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this SNOPR. Any
oral comments provided during the
webinar that are not substantively
addressed by written comments are
summarized and cited separately
throughout this document.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. Basis for This Proposed Rule
In the December 2020 NOPD, the
tentative determination that amended
energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking
products would not be economically
justified and would not result in a
significant conservation of energy
hinged, in significant part, on DOE’s
15 The parenthetical reference provides a
reference for information located in the docket of
DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking
products. (Docket NO. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005,
which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter
name, comment docket ID number, page of that
document).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
proposal to screen out all identified
technology options that would improve
the performance of gas cooking tops to
efficiencies above the baseline
efficiency level. 85 FR 80982, 81003–
81004. DOE noted in the December 2020
NOPD that the estimates for energy
savings associated with a specific
technology option for gas cooking tops,
optimized burner and grate design, may
vary depending on the test procedure,
and thus DOE screened out this
technology options from further analysis
of gas cooking tops. Id. at 85 FR 81004.
As discussed in section III.C of this
document, at the time of the December
2020 NOPD, DOE had withdrawn its test
procedure for conventional cooking
tops. However, DOE additionally stated
in the December 2020 NOPD that it
would reevaluate the energy savings
associated with this technology option if
it considered performance standards in
a future rulemaking. Id.
On August 22, 2022, DOE published
a final rule (‘‘August 2022 TP Final
Rule’’) establishing a test procedure for
conventional cooking tops, at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix I1,
‘‘Uniform Test Method for the
Measuring the Energy Consumption of
Conventional Cooking Products.’’ 87 FR
51492. As a result, in this SNOPR, DOE
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Docket No.
88
Commenter type
is reevaluating the energy savings
associated with the optimized burner
and grate design technology option for
conventional gas cooking tops and has
tentatively found that amended energy
conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products are
economically justified and would result
in a significant conservation of energy.
As discussed in section III.C of this
document, this SNOPR specifically
further differs from the September 2016
SNOPR in that the performance
standards evaluated for conventional
cooking tops are based on the new
appendix I1 test procedure, rather than
on the now-withdrawn former appendix
I.
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A
(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is
deviating from the provision in
appendix A regarding the NOPR stage
for an energy conservation standard
rulemaking. Section 6(f)(2) of appendix
A specifies that the length of the public
comment period for a NOPR will vary
depending upon the circumstances of
the particular rulemaking, but will not
be less than 75 calendar days. For this
SNOPR, DOE has opted to instead
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
provide a 60-day comment period. DOE
requested comment in the February
2014 RFI on the technical and economic
analyses and provided stakeholders a
60-day comment period, after
publishing the comment period
extension. Additionally, DOE provided
a 30-day comment period for the
September 2016 SNOPR with an
extension to 60 days, and a 75-day
comment period for the December 2020
NOPD. 81 FR 60784, 81 FR 67219, 85 FR
80982. DOE has relied on many of the
same analytical assumptions and
approaches as used in the September
2016 SNOPR and December 2020
NOPD. As such, DOE believes a 60-day
comment period is appropriate and will
provide interested parties with a
meaningful opportunity to comment on
the proposed rule.
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposal after
considering oral and written comments,
data, and information from interested
parties that represent a variety of
interests. The following discussion
addresses issues raised by these
commenters.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. General Comments
This section summarizes general
comments received from interested
parties regarding rulemaking timing and
process.
GEA supported the comments
submitted by AHAM and incorporated
them by reference. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 1).
AHAM stated that the 2017 statutory
deadline to publish a final rule
regarding consumer conventional
cooking product energy conservation
standards has passed, and that DOE
should not hold this rule open and
should finalize a determination not to
amend the standard. (AHAM, No. 84 at
p. 4). AHAM commented that it is
disingenuous of other commenters to
simultaneously challenge DOE for
failing to timely meet an obligation
while also urging it to further delay
meeting that same obligation. (Id.)
AHAM added that, should DOE believe
energy conservation standards based on
measured efficiency could be justified
once a reliable test procedure exists,
DOE can propose a rule at any time after
the publication of the determination not
to amend the standard, although AHAM
questioned whether such a standard
would be justified under EPCA. (Id.)
AHAM further noted that EPCA requires
that DOE re-evaluate its determination
not to amend the standard within 3
years of the issuance of that
determination. 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B).
(Id.)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
GEA commented that DOE’s actions
on this standard are long past due.
(GEA, No. 85 at p. 2).
The CA IOUs urged DOE to consider
the implications of the December 2020
NOPD on the Executive Order 13990
and the announcement that the DOE
would be re-examining the withdrawal
of the cooking top test procedure. (CA
IOUs, No. 89 at p. 5)
In the most recent stage of this
rulemaking, DOE published the
December 2020 NOPD in which it
tentatively concluded that new and
amended energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional cooking
products would not be economically
justified and would not result in a
significant conservation of energy, in
part because it was unable to evaluate
certain technology options for gas
cooking tops in the absence of a test
procedure for these products. 85 FR
80982. The test procedure established in
the August 2022 TP Final Rule,
discussed in more detail in section III.C
of this document, provides testing
results upon which these SNOPR
analyses for conventional cooking tops
were based. DOE reevaluated its
analyses as quickly as possible once the
test procedure was finalized. President
Biden’s Executive Order 13990, which
addresses the social cost of carbon and
other greenhouse gases, are discussed in
section IV.L of this document.
The Joint Gas Associations agreed
with the DOE’s tentative determination
in the December 2020 NOPD that no
new standards are justified. (Joint Gas
Associations, No. 86 at pp. 2–3). The
Joint Gas Associations further supported
the December 2020 NOPD’s tentative
determination that neither of the
February 2020 Process Rule’s thresholds
for significant energy savings are met for
TSL 2 or TSL 1 for consumer
conventional cooking products. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters expressed
concern that DOE indicated it was in the
process of revising the Process Rule, yet
the Department cited the energy savings
thresholds from the February 2020
Process Rule to justify the proposed
determination of no amended standards.
(Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 1). The
Joint Commenters added that with
billions of consumer savings at risk,
DOE should not move forward with this
determination until DOE completed the
indicated revisions to the Process Rule.
(Id.) The Joint Commenters further
commented that DOE should eliminate
the energy savings thresholds as part of
the Process Rule revision in order to
ensure that critical energy and utility
bill savings are not lost. (Joint
Commenters, No. 87 at p. 2).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6827
In evaluating the significance of the
estimated energy savings for the
December 2020 NOPD, DOE applied a
two-part numeric threshold test that was
then applicable under section 6(b) of
appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart
C (Jan. 1, 2021 edition).16 Specifically,
the threshold required that an energy
conservation standard result in a 0.30
quads reduction in site energy use over
a 30-year analysis period or a 10-percent
reduction in site energy use over that
same period. See 85 FR 8626, 8670 (Feb.
14, 2020). In the December 2020 NOPD,
DOE stated that the estimated site
energy savings at the max-tech level
evaluated at that time was 0.57 quads,
which exceeded the 0.3-quads
threshold, but expressed concern that
this TSL might result in the
unavailability of certain product types
for conventional ovens because there
would be significant uncertainty as to
whether commercial-style
manufacturers would be able to test
their products in the absence of a DOE
test procedure for conventional ovens.
85 FR 80982, 81053. (See section III.C of
this document for discussion of the
repeal of the conventional oven test
procedure.) DOE then evaluated the
next lower TSL than max-tech and
estimated that it would save an
estimated 0.22 quads of site energy over
the evaluation period, which would
represent a 4.9-percent decrease in the
site energy use of the evaluated
products. Id. That estimated site energy
savings would not reach the 0.3 quadthreshold or the 10-percent site energy
saving threshold enumerated in section
6(b) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430
subpart C (Jan. 1, 2021 edition).
Accordingly, DOE tentatively
determined in the December 2020
NOPD that new or amended energy
conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products would
not result in significant conservation of
energy and be economically justified. Id.
On December 13, 2021, DOE
published in the Federal Register, a
final rule that amended appendix A. 86
FR 70892 (‘‘December 2021 Final
Rule’’). The December 2021 Final Rule,
in part, removed the numeric threshold
in section 6(b) of appendix A for
determining when the significant energy
savings criterion is met, reverting to
DOE’s prior practice of making such
determinations on a case-by-case basis.
86 FR 70892.
Adkins commented that many
consumer cooking products are already
16 DOE established the numeric threshold test in
section 6(b) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430
subpart C in a final rule published on February 14,
2020. 85 FR 8626.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
6828
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
operating at near peak capabilities and
added that introducing stronger
regulations on consumer cooking
products would increase the cost of
these products for consumers, lowering
consumption with little to no positive
environmental impact. (Adkins, No. 81
at p. 1)
Ahmad commented that DOE’s
tentative determination of no economic
justification for cooking products may
still be valid because of a lack of
significant technological advancements
since the September 2016 SNOPR.
(Ahmad, No. 82 at p. 1)
AHAM stated that no significant
changes have occurred to justify new
standards since the April 2009 Final
Rule that determined that energy
conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products were not
justified. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4)
GEA stated that consumer
conventional cooking products use little
energy compared to other DOE regulated
products and therefore DOE’s limited
resources are better served on products
for whom greater energy savings is
feasible. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2) GEA
supported DOE’s proposed
determination not to amend standards.
(Id.)
The Joint Gas Associations agreed
with DOE’s tentative determination in
the December 2020 NOPD that a
potential amended standard based on
TSL 3 would result in a negative net
present value, a negative INPV range, a
potential unavailability of certain
product types for conventional ovens,
and a loss of certain functions that
provide utility to customers, and that a
potential standard at TSL 3 is not
economically justified. (Joint Gas
Associations, No. 86 at p. 3) The Joint
Gas Associations further stated that any
potential positive impacts from an
amended standard at TSL 3 are not
outweighed by these estimated negative
impacts. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters commented
that, without the February 2020 Process
Rule thresholds, adopting standards at
TSL 2 from the December 2020 NOPD
could provide full-fuel cycle savings of
0.6 quads and consumer savings of up
to $3.7 billion. (Joint Commenters, No.
87 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters added
that adopting standards at the TSL 2
from the December 2020 NOPD would
provide full-fuel-cycle energy savings of
0.28 quads and NPV savings of up to $2
billion for electric smooth element
cooking tops with an incremental cost of
only $3, and would achieve full-fuelcycle energy savings of 0.1 quads and
NPV savings of up to $730 million for
self-cleaning freestanding conventional
electric ovens with an incremental cost
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
of $1. (Id. referencing 85 FR 80982,
81049–81050).
NEEA commented that according to
the 2015 RECS, while cooking
represents a small amount of overall
home energy use (1.4 percent in
residential electricity use and 2.9
percent in residential gas use), when
combined with the potential individual
unit savings for cooking tops shown in
the December 2020 NOPD and external
testing, performance-based standards for
cooking tops could lead to significant
national energy savings. (NEEA, No. 88
at p. 3) NEEA noted that DOE’s testing
showed that conventional gas cooking
tops with similar average burner input
rates can vary in annual energy use by
as much as 27 percent, and
conventional oven efficiency for units
with similar input rates varied by 11
percent and 19 percent for gas and
electric units, respectively. (Id.
referencing 85 FR 80982, 81008–81009)
NEEA also noted that DOE found
potential energy savings on average of
24 percent for induction electric
cooking tops compared to a baseline
smooth element electric cooking top.
NEEA commented that this is in line
with recent testing conducted by the
Food Service Technology Center,17
which found a 23-percent efficiency
improvement. (Id. referencing 85 FR
80982, 81035) NEEA recommended that
DOE proceed with updated standards
for cooking tops and conventional ovens
once the test procedure has been
updated, commenting that this would
allow DOE to consider performancebased standards for cooking tops and
conventional ovens that harness energy
efficiency opportunities, which could
not be fully achieved through the
prescriptive standards considered in the
December 2020 NOPD (Id.).
The CA IOUs commented that, given
the recent shift in consumer behavior,
there is a high likelihood that a
reanalysis of the TSL 2 defined in the
December 2020 NOPD based on more
recent cooking frequency data would
lead to site savings greater than 0.3
quads, exceeding the February 2020
Process Rule’s significant energy savings
threshold. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at pp. 3–
4)
EPCA requires that any new or
amended energy conservation standards
prescribed by DOE for any type (or
class) of covered product be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency (or for certain
products, water efficiency) which the
17 Frontier Energy. Residential Cooktop
Performance and Energy Comparison Study. July
2019. Page 11. Available at
www.buildingdecarb.org/uploads/3/0/7/3/
30734489/induction_report.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Secretary determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified.
Upon the finalization of a new test
procedure for consumer conventional
cooking products, DOE reevaluated its
analysis from the December 2020 NOPD,
including its tentative determination at
that time to screen out the technology
option for improved burner and grate
design. DOE is updating its tentative
conclusions in this SNOPR to reflect the
use of optimized burners and grates on
gas cooking tops to achieve higher
efficiencies. See section IV.A.2 and
section IV.B of this document, as well
as chapters 3 and 4 of the TSD for this
SNOPR for additional information on
this technology option and screening
analysis. DOE also updated its
information regarding the prevalence of
baseline technologies in conventional
ovens on the market. See section IV.F.8
of this document and chapter 7 of the
TSD for this SNOPR. Pursuant to these
updates and others outlined in this
SNOPR, DOE revised its analysis
regarding the technological feasibility
and economic justification of new and
amended energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional cooking
products and presents a summary of the
results in section V of this SNOPR.
B. Product Classes and Scope of
Coverage
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product
classes by the type of energy used or by
capacity or other performance-related
features that justify differing standards.
In making a determination whether a
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider
such factors as the utility of the feature
to the consumer and other factors DOE
determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q))
As discussed in section II.A of this
document, 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10) of
EPCA covers kitchen ranges and ovens,
or ‘‘cooking products.’’ DOE’s
regulations define ‘‘cooking products’’
as consumer products that are used as
the major household cooking
appliances. They are designed to cook
or heat different types of food by one or
more of the following sources of heat:
Gas, electricity, or microwave energy.
Each product may consist of a
horizontal cooking top containing one
or more surface units 18 and/or one or
more heating compartments. 10 CFR
430.2. DOE is not considering energy
18 The term surface unit refers to burners for gas
cooking tops and electric resistance heating
elements or inductive heating elements for electric
cooking tops.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
conservation standards for microwave
ovens as part of this proposed
rulemaking.19
DOE defines a combined cooking
product as a household cooking
appliance that combines a conventional
cooking top and/or conventional oven
with other appliance functionality,
which may or may not include another
cooking product (10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix I). In this analysis,
DOE is not treating combined cooking
products as a distinct product category
and is not basing its product classes on
such a category. Instead, DOE is
evaluating energy conservation
standards for conventional cooking tops
and conventional ovens separately.
Because combined cooking products
consist, in part, of a cooking top and/or
oven, the cooking top and oven
standards would continue to apply to
the individual components of the
combined cooking product.
As part of the 2009 standards
rulemaking for consumer conventional
cooking products, DOE did not consider
energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional gas cooking
products with higher burner input rates,
including products marketed as
‘‘commercial-style’’ or ‘‘professionalstyle,’’ due to a lack of available data for
determining efficiency characteristics of
those products. DOE considered such
products to be gas cooking tops with
burner input rates greater than 14,000
British thermal units per hour (‘‘Btu/h’’)
and gas ovens with burner input rates
greater than 22,500 Btu/h. 74 FR 16040,
16054 (Apr. 8, 2009); 72 FR 64432,
64444–64445 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE also
stated that the DOE cooking products
test procedures at that time may not
adequately measure performance of gas
cooking tops and ovens with higher
burner input rates. 72 FR 64432, 64444–
64445 (Nov. 15, 2007).
As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE
stated that it tentatively planned to
consider energy conservation standards
for all consumer conventional cooking
products, including commercial-style
gas cooking products with higher burner
input rates. In addition, DOE stated that
it may consider developing test
procedures for these products and
determine whether separate product
classes are warranted. 79 FR 8337, 8340
(Feb. 12, 2014).
As discussed in section III.C of this
document, DOE’s new test procedure for
conventional cooking tops in appendix
I1 measures the energy use of
commercial-style gas cooking tops with
high burner input rates. DOE also
19 See www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017BT-STD-0023/document.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
repealed the conventional oven test
procedure in a final rule published on
December 16, 2016 (‘‘December 2016 TP
Final Rule’’). 81 FR 91418.
In the December 2020 NOPD, in the
absence of Federal test procedures to
measure the energy use or energy
efficiency of conventional cooking tops
and conventional ovens, DOE evaluated
prescriptive design requirements for the
control system of conventional electric
smooth element cooking tops and
conventional ovens, including
commercial-style ovens with higher
burner input rates. 85 FR 80982, 80988.
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE
stated that it would maintain the
existing prescriptive design
requirements for all conventional gas
cooking products, noting that the
current definitions for ‘‘conventional
cooking top’’ and ‘‘conventional oven’’
in 10 CFR 430.2 already cover
commercial-style gas cooking products
with higher burner input rates, as these
products are household cooking
appliances with surface units or
compartments intended for the cooking
or heating of food by means of a gas
flame. Id. In the December 2020 NOPD,
DOE did not propose a separate product
class for gas cooking tops and ovens
with higher burner input rates that are
marketed as ‘‘commercial-style’’ and did
not propose separate definitions for
these products. Id.
Adkins supported higher standards
for industrial cooking equipment and
stated that the degree of energy saved by
an individual consumer is minimal
when compared to that of an entire
business or corporation. (Adkins, No. 81
at p. 1)
Ahmad commented that microwave
ovens should be the subject of amended
energy conservation standards due to
widespread use in the U.S. (Ahmad, No.
82 at p. 1)
The scope of this rulemaking is
limited to cooking products. As defined
in 10 CFR 430.2, ‘‘cooking products’’ are
consumer products that are used as the
major household cooking appliances.
They are designed to cook or heat
different types of food by one or more
of the following sources of heat: Gas,
electricity, or microwave energy. Each
product may consist of a horizontal
cooking top containing one or more
surface units and/or one or more heating
compartments. Industrial cooking
equipment and microwave ovens are not
in the scope of this proposed rule.
In this SNOPR, DOE is proposing to
define a portable conventional cooking
top as a conventional cooking top
designed to be moved from place to
place. Using this definition, DOE is
proposing that the proposed standards
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6829
for conventional cooking tops would
apply to portable models according to
their means of heating (gas, electric
open (coil) element, or electric smooth
element).
DOE requests comment on its
proposed definition for portable
conventional cooking top and DOE’s
proposal to include portable
conventional cooking tops in the
existing product classes. DOE also seeks
data and information on its initial
determination not to differentiate
conventional cooking tops on the basis
of portability when considering product
classes for this SNOPR analysis.
C. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable
criteria and procedures for DOE’s
adoption and amendment of test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must
use these test procedures to certify to
DOE that their product complies with
energy conservation standards and to
quantify the efficiency of their product.
DOE’s current energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional
cooking products are prescriptive
standards that prohibits constant
burning pilots for all gas cooking
products (i.e., gas cooking products both
with or without an electrical supply
cord) manufactured on and after April 9,
2012. 74 FR 16040. (See 10 CFR
430.32(j)(2).)
DOE established test procedures for
consumer conventional cooking
products in a final rule published in the
Federal Register on May 10, 1978. 43
FR 20108, 20120–20128. DOE revised its
test procedures for cooking products to
more accurately measure their efficiency
and energy use, and published the
revisions as a final rule in 1997. 62 FR
51976 (Oct. 3, 1997). These test
procedure amendments included: (1) A
reduction in the annual useful cooking
energy; (2) a reduction in the number of
self-clean oven cycles per year; and (3)
incorporation of portions of
International Electrotechnical
Commission (‘‘IEC’’) Standard 705–
1988, ‘‘Methods for measuring the
performance of microwave ovens for
household and similar purposes,’’ and
Amendment 2–1993 for the testing of
microwave ovens. Id. The test
procedures for consumer conventional
cooking products established provisions
for determining estimated annual
operating cost, cooking efficiency
(defined as the ratio of cooking energy
output to cooking energy input), and
energy factor (defined as the ratio of
annual useful cooking energy output to
total annual energy input). 10 CFR
430.23(i); appendix I. These provisions
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
6830
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
for consumer conventional cooking
products were not used for compliance
with any energy conservation standards
because the standards to date have been
design requirements; in addition, there
is no EnergyGuide 20 labeling program
for cooking products.
DOE subsequently conducted a
rulemaking to address standby and off
mode energy consumption, as well as
certain active mode (i.e., fan-only mode)
testing provisions, for consumer
conventional cooking products,
satisfying the EPCA requirement that
DOE include measures of standby mode
and off mode power in its test
procedures for residential products, if
technically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A)). DOE published a final
rule on October 31, 2012 (‘‘October 2012
TP Final Rule’’), adopting standby and
off mode provisions. 77 FR 65942.
Prior to the June 2015 NOPR, DOE
issued two notices requesting comment
on the test procedures for cooking
products. On January 30, 2013, DOE
published a NOPR (‘‘January 2013 TP
NOPR’’) proposing amendments to the
cooking products test procedure in
appendix I that would allow for the
testing of active mode energy
consumption of induction cooking tops;
i.e., conventional cooking tops equipped
with induction heating technology for
one or more surface units on the
cooking top. 78 FR 6232. DOE proposed
to incorporate induction cooking tops
by amending the definition of
‘‘conventional cooking top’’ to include
induction heating technology.
Furthermore, DOE proposed to require
for all cooking tops the use of test
equipment compatible with induction
technology. Specifically, DOE proposed
to replace the solid aluminum test
blocks specified at that time in the test
procedure for cooking tops with hybrid
test blocks comprising two separate
pieces: an aluminum body and a
stainless-steel base. 78 FR 6232, 6234.
On December 3, 2014, DOE issued a
second notice requesting comment on
the test procedures for cooking products
(‘‘December 2014 TP SNOPR’’). 79 FR
71894. In the December 2014 TP
SNOPR, DOE modified its proposal from
the January 2013 TP NOPR in response
to comments from interested parties to
specify different test equipment that
would allow for measuring the energy
efficiency of induction cooking tops,
and would include an additional test
block size for electric surface units with
large diameters (both induction and
electric resistance). Id. In addition, DOE
20 For more information on the EnergyGuide
labeling program, see: consumer.ftc.gov/articles/
how-use-energyguide-label-shop-home-appliances.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
proposed methods to test non-circular
electric surface units, electric surface
units with flexible concentric cooking
zones, and full-surface induction
cooking tops. Id. In the December 2014
TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed
amendments to add a larger test block
size to test gas cooking top burners with
higher input rates. Id.
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR,
DOE also proposed methods for
measuring conventional oven volume,
clarification that the existing oven test
block must be used to test all ovens
regardless of input rate, and a method
to measure the energy consumption and
efficiency of conventional ovens
equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR
71894.
On July 2, 2015, DOE published a test
procedure final rule (‘‘July 2015 TP
Final Rule’’) adopting the test procedure
amendments discussed above for
conventional ovens only. 80 FR 37954.
As discussed in the June 2015 NOPR
for conventional ovens, DOE received a
significant number of comments raising
issues with the repeatability and
reproducibility of the proposed hybrid
test block test method for cooking tops
in response to the December 2014 TP
SNOPR and in separate interviews
conducted with consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers in
February and March of 2015. 80 FR
33030, 33039–33040. A number of
manufacturers that produce and sell
products in Europe supported the use of
a water-heating test method and
harmonization with IEC Standard
60350–2 Edition 2, ‘‘Household electric
appliances—Part 2: Hobs—Method for
measuring performance’’ 21 (‘‘IEC
Standard 60350–2’’) for measuring the
energy consumption of electric cooking
tops. These manufacturers stated that
the test methods in IEC Standard
60350–2 are compatible with all electric
cooking top types, specify additional
cookware diameters to account for the
variety of surface unit sizes on the
market, and use test loads that represent
real-world cooking top loads. Efficiency
advocates also recommended that DOE
require water-heating test methods to
produce a measure of cooking efficiency
for conventional cooking tops that is
more representative of actual cooking
performance than the hybrid test block
method. 80 FR 33030, 33039–33040. For
these reasons, DOE decided to defer its
decision regarding adoption of energy
conservation standards for conventional
cooking tops until a representative,
repeatable and reproducible test method
21 Hob
PO 00000
is the British English term for cooking top.
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for cooking tops was finalized. 80 FR
33030, 33040.
DOE published an SNOPR on August
22, 2016 (‘‘August 2016 TP SNOPR’’)
that proposed amendments to the test
procedures for conventional cooking
tops. 81 FR 57374. Given the feedback
from interested parties discussed above
and based on the additional testing and
analysis conducted for the test
procedure rulemaking, in the August
2016 TP SNOPR, DOE withdrew its
proposal for testing conventional
cooking tops with a hybrid test block.
Instead, DOE proposed to amend its test
procedure to incorporate by reference
the relevant sections of European
Standard EN 60350–2:2013 ‘‘Household
electric cooking appliances Part 2:
Hobs—Methods for measuring
performance’’ 22 (‘‘EN 60350–2:2013’’),
which provide a water-heating test
method to measure the energy
consumption of electric cooking tops.
The test method specifies the quantity
of water to be heated in a standardized
test vessel whose size is selected based
on the diameter of the surface unit
under test. The test vessels specified in
EN 60350–2:2013 are compatible with
all cooking top technologies and surface
unit diameters available on the U.S.
market. 81 FR 57374, 57381–57384.
DOE also proposed to extend the test
methods provided in EN 60530–2:2013
to measure the energy consumption of
gas cooking tops by correlating test
equipment diameter to burner input
rate, including input rates that exceed
14,000 Btu/h. 81 FR 57374, 57385–
57386. In addition, DOE also proposed
in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to
include methods for both electric and
gas cooking tops to calculate the annual
energy consumption (‘‘AEC’’) and
integrated annual energy consumption
(‘‘IAEC’’) to account for the proposed
water-heating test method. 81 FR 57374,
57387–57388. In the August 2016 TP
SNOPR, DOE proposed to repeal the
conventional oven test procedure. DOE
determined that the conventional oven
test procedure may not accurately
represent consumer use as it favors
conventional ovens with low thermal
mass and does not capture cooking
performance-related benefits due to
increased thermal mass of the oven
cavity. 81 FR 57374, 57378–57379.
22 The test methods in EN 60350–2:2013 are based
on the same test methods in the draft version of IEC
60350–2 available at the time of the December 2016
TP Final Rule. As noted in that final rule, based on
the few comments received during the development
of the draft, DOE expected that the IEC procedure,
once finalized, would retain the same basic test
method as contained in EN 60350–2:2013. 81 FR
91418, 91421.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
As discussed previously, for the
September 2016 SNOPR, DOE evaluated
its proposed energy conservation
standards for conventional cooking tops
based on the cooking top test procedure
proposed in the August 2016 TP
SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 60797. For
conventional ovens, due to the
uncertainties in analyzing a
performance-based standard using oven
testing provisions that DOE proposed to
remove from the test procedure, as
discussed previously, DOE proposed in
the September 2016 SNOPR prescriptive
design requirements for the control
system of conventional ovens. 81 FR
60784, 60794.
On December 16, 2016, DOE
published a final rule repealing the test
procedures for conventional ovens, and
adopting the test procedure
amendments for conventional cooking
tops proposed in the August 2016 TP
SNOPR, with the following
modifications:
• Aligning the test methods for
electric surface units with flexible
concentric cooking zones (also referred
to as multi-ring surface units) with the
provisions in EN 60350–2:2013; 23
• Clarifying the simmering
temperature requirements, temperature
sensor requirements, and surface unit
diameter measurement; and
• Maintaining the existing
installation requirements in appendix I.
81 FR 91418.
The Administrative Procedure Act
(‘‘APA’’), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides
among other things, that ‘‘[e]ach agency
shall give an interested person the right
to petition for the issuance, amendment,
or repeal of a rule.’’ (5 U.S.C. 553(e))
DOE received a petition from AHAM
requesting that DOE reconsider its
December 2016 TP Final Rule. In its
petition, AHAM requested that DOE
undertake a rulemaking to withdraw the
test procedure for conventional cooking
tops, while maintaining the repeal of the
oven test procedure that was part of the
December 2016 TP Final Rule. In the
interim, AHAM sought an immediate
stay of the effectiveness of the December
2016 TP Final Rule, including the
requirement that manufacturers use the
final test procedure to make energyrelated claims. In its petition, AHAM
claimed that its analyses showed that
the test procedure is not representative
for gas cooking tops and, for gas and
23 EN 60350–2:2013 requires testing of the largest
measured diameter of multi-ring surface units only,
unless an additional test vessel category is needed
to meet the test vessel selection requirements in EN
60350–2:2013. In that case, one of the smallerdiameter settings of the multi-ring surface unit may
be tested if it fulfills the test vessel category
requirement.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
electric cooking tops, has such a high
level of variation it will not produce
accurate results for certification and
enforcement purposes and will not
assist consumers in making purchasing
decisions based on energy efficiency.
DOE published AHAM’s petition on
April 25, 2018, and requested comments
and information on whether DOE
should undertake a rulemaking to
consider the proposal contained in the
petition. 80 FR 17944.
On August 18, 2020, DOE published
a final rule (‘‘August 2020 TP Final
Rule’’) withdrawing the test procedure
for conventional cooking tops after
evaluating new information and data
produced by AHAM and other
interested parties that suggested that the
test procedure yields inconsistent
results that are indicative of the test not
being representative of energy use or
efficiency during an average use cycle.
85 FR 50757. Testing conducted by DOE
and outside parties using the test
procedure yielded inconsistent results.
85 FR 50757, 50763. DOE had not
identified the cause of the
inconsistencies and noted that its data
to date was limited. Id. DOE concluded,
therefore, that the test procedure was
not representative of energy use or
efficiency during an average use cycle.
Id. DOE also determined that it would
be unduly burdensome to leave the test
procedure in place and require cooking
top tests to be conducted using that test
method without further study to resolve
those inconsistencies. Id.
As discussed, DOE published the
August 2022 TP Final Rule establishing
a test procedure for conventional
cooking tops, at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix I1, ‘‘Uniform Test
Method for the Measuring the Energy
Consumption of Conventional Cooking
Products.’’ 87 FR 51492. The test
procedure adopted the latest version of
the relevant industry standard
published by IEC, Standard 60350–2
(Edition 2.0 2017–08), ‘‘Household
electric cooking appliances—Part 2:
Hobs—Methods for measuring
performance’’ (‘‘IEC 60350–2:2017’’), for
electric cooking tops with modifications
including adapting the test method to
gas cooking tops, normalizing the
energy use of each test cycle to a
consistent final water temperature, and
including a measurement of standby
mode and off mode energy use. Id.
Under EPCA, any new or amended
energy conservation standard must
include, where applicable, test
procedures prescribed in accordance
with the test procedure provisions of the
Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(r)). As discussed
previously, DOE repealed the
conventional oven test procedure and is
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6831
evaluating new prescriptive design
requirements for the control system of
conventional ovens, while proposing to
maintain the existing prescriptive
design requirements for conventional
gas ovens. As a result, the prescriptive
design requirements would not require
manufacturers to test using the DOE test
procedure to certify conventional ovens.
Furthermore, since DOE is proposing
to adopt prescriptive design
requirements that would not require a
test procedure for conventional ovens,
DOE tentatively concludes that no test
procedures for conventional ovens are
needed at this time. If finalized, this
tentative determination would satisfy
the EPCA requirement at 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A) that requires the Secretary
to review test procedures for all covered
products, including conventional ovens,
every 7 years and either amend those
test procedures or publish in the
Federal Register of a determination not
to amend the test procedure. The last
time the conventional ovens test
procedure was evaluated was as part of
the December 2016 Final Rule, which
repealed the existing test procedure for
conventional ovens. Therefore, if DOE
were to proceed, it would need to
finalize its determination by December
16, 2023.
AHAM stated that the absence of a
test procedure to measure efficiency for
cooking tops and conventional ovens is
sufficient grounds upon which to justify
a determination not to amend standards
beyond the existing design standards
(AHAM, No. 84 at pp. 2–3). AHAM
added that EPCA does not allow DOE to
prescribe amended or new standards
without a final test procedure in place
(Id. referencing 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)).
EPCA’s requirement that the Secretary
may not prescribe an amended or new
standard if a test procedure has not been
prescribed does not apply to
dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes
dryers, and kitchen ranges and ovens,
the subject of this rulemaking (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A)).
AHAM commented that it was
working on a test procedure to measure
the efficiency of cooking tops and
conventional ovens (AHAM, No. 84 at p.
3). AHAM added that DOE and some
efficiency advocates have been included
in the task force that is developing the
test. (Id.) AHAM stated that the goals of
its cooking top and conventional oven
test procedures are to address the
technical issues in the previous cooking
top and conventional oven test
procedures, which ultimately resulted
in their withdrawal, and to develop new
test procedures that are accurate,
repeatable, and reproducible. (Id.)
AHAM suggested that DOE would be
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
6832
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
able to adopt both procedures in their
entirety in a future rulemaking. (Id.)
In response to DOE’s notification of
the White House Office of Management
and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) that it would
review its withdrawal of the cooking top
test procedure, AHAM urged DOE not to
consume its resources in considering to
reinstate the withdrawn cooking top test
procedure and stated that DOE should
continue to work with AHAM and
efficiency advocates to develop a new
collaborative cooking top test procedure
which would provide certainty as DOE
proceeds with a future standards
rulemaking process, shorten the time
needed to finalize a test method, and
satisfy the goals of Executive Order
13990. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 3)
GEA supported DOE’s proposed
determination not to amend standards
because there is no current test
procedure for consumer conventional
cooking products. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2)
GEA stated that the previously
withdrawn test procedures were not
reliable or reproducible. (Id.) GEA stated
that it is working closely with the
AHAM task force dedicated to
developing a reliable, repeatable, and
reproducible test procedure for
consumer conventional cooking
products. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters stated that
DOE must establish test procedures for
cooking products and complete the
revision of the Process Rule prior to
proceeding with a determination for
cooking products standards. (Joint
Commenters, No. 87 at p. 1) The Joint
Commenters noted that performancebased standards have the potential to
achieve significantly greater savings
than prescriptive requirements, and that
DOE should focus on establishing test
procedures rather than use repealed test
procedures to evaluate potential
standard levels. (Id.)
NEEA recommended that DOE
conduct further testing as needed and
issue updated test procedures for both
cooking tops and conventional ovens,
given the significant potential energy
savings from performance standards for
both product categories. (NEEA, No. 88
at pp. 1–2) NEEA recommended that
DOE conduct additional testing to
resolve the discrepancies found during
former testing and develop a revised test
procedure for conventional cooking tops
as soon as possible. (NEEA, No. 88 at p.
2) NEEA stated that all concerns
submitted in AHAM’s petition for the
withdrawal of the cooking top test
procedure (concern over the lack of
defined tolerance for staying ‘‘as close
as possible’’ to 194 degrees Fahrenheit
(‘‘°F’’) in the test procedure, variability
in energy consumption during the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
simmer phase, and variability in
determining the turn down temperature
and setting) can be addressed by setting
appropriate tolerances on these
variables. (Id.) NEEA further noted that
the test method that was referenced in
the 2016 test procedure, EN 60350–2–
2013, has been updated since the
December 2016 TP Final Rule and the
revised test method may serve as an
additional resource in developing an
updated test procedure that is
representative, repeatable, and
reproducible. (NEEA, No. 88 at pp. 2–
3) NEEA recommended that DOE
consider ASTM Standard F1521 in
updating the test procedure, which has
been used by the Food Service
Technology Center to conduct testing on
conventional cooking top performance
and efficiency and is currently being
updated for ASTM Committee F26 on
Food Service Equipment. (NEEA, No. 88
at p. 2)
The CA IOUs believe that the
withdrawn cooking top test procedure is
adequately repeatable and that it should
be re-examined. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at p.
2) The CA IOUs stated they believe the
discrepancies presented in the AHAM
Withdrawal Petition are, in part, due to
specific test method employed during
AHAM’s testing. (Id.) The CA IOUs
continued that because the test data
which was used to withdraw the test
procedure did not use the ambient
condition 24 specifications of the test
procedure in question, DOE should
pursue robust round robin testing to
uncover the true reproducibility values
associated with the test procedure. (Id.)
In the August 2020 TP Final Rule, DOE
cited authority to withdraw the cooking
products test procedure under 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3), noting that ‘‘DOE has the
authority to withdraw a test procedure
that is not representative of an average
use cycle or period of use and is unduly
burdensome to conduct.’’ (Id.) In
response, the CA IOUs commented that
they believe the authority to act on an
unrepresentative test procedure lies in
42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2), which only grants
DOE the authority to prescribe or amend
a test procedure, not to withdraw a test
procedure in its entirety. (Id.) The CA
IOUs requested that DOE consider
reinstating the test procedure and using
24 AHAM’s petition noted that some of the test
labs participating in the round robin testing were
unable to meet the ambient conditions of ‘‘±2 °F’’
specified in the DOE test procedure, and therefore
ran tests at ±5 °F in their laboratories. (EERE–2018–
BT–TP–0004–0003) DOE notes that the test
procedure finalized in the December 2016 TP Final
Rule required ambient conditions of ±2 °Celsius
(‘‘°C’’), which is equivalent to ±5 °F, the
specification used by AHAM.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the performance-based analysis therein.
(Id.)
DOE acknowledges that a test
procedure is necessary to evaluate the
performance of, and to adopt
performance standards for, cooking
tops. As discussed previously, since the
December 2020 NOPD, DOE has
published a test procedure final rule
establishing test procedures for cooking
tops. In this SNOPR, DOE has analyzed
performance-based standards for
cooking tops, measured according to
new appendix I1.
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each energy conservation standards
rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening
analysis based on information gathered
on all current technology options and
prototype designs that could improve
the efficiency of the products or
equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an
analysis, DOE develops a list of
technology options for consideration in
consultation with manufacturers, design
engineers, and other interested parties.
DOE then determines which of those
means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers
technologies incorporated in
commercially-available products or in
working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. Sections
6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A.
After DOE has determined that
particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further
evaluates each technology option in
light of the following additional
screening criteria: (1) practicability to
manufacture, install, and service; (2)
adverse impacts on product utility or
availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway
proprietary technologies. Sections
6(b)(3)(ii)–(v) and 7(b)(2)–(5) of
appendix A. Section IV.B of this
document discusses the results of the
screening analysis for consumer
conventional cooking products,
particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and
those that are the basis for the standards
considered in this rulemaking. For
further details on the screening analysis
for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the
TSD for this SNOPR.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an
amended standard for a type or class of
covered product, it must determine the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
energy use that is technologically
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the
engineering analysis, DOE determined
the maximum technologically feasible
(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy
efficiency for consumer conventional
cooking products, using the design
parameters for the most efficient
products available on the market or in
working prototypes. The max-tech
levels that DOE determined for this
rulemaking are described in section IV.C
of this proposed rule and in chapter 5
of the TSD for this SNOPR.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (i.e.,
TSL), DOE projected energy savings
from application of the TSL to consumer
conventional cooking products
purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the year of compliance with
the proposed standards (2027–2056).25
The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of consumer
conventional cooking products
purchased in the previous 30-year
period. DOE quantified the energy
savings attributable to each TSL as the
difference in energy consumption
between each standards case and the nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of
energy consumption that reflects how
the market for a product would likely
evolve in the absence of new or
amended energy conservation
standards.
DOE used its national impact analysis
(‘‘NIA’’) spreadsheet model to estimate
national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) from
potential amended or new standards for
consumer conventional cooking
products. The NIA spreadsheet model
(described in section IV.H of this
document) calculates energy savings in
terms of site energy, which is the energy
directly consumed by products at the
locations where they are used. For
electricity, DOE reports national energy
savings in terms of primary energy
savings, which is the savings in the
energy that is used to generate and
transmit the site electricity. For natural
gas, the primary energy savings are
considered to be equal to the site energy
savings. DOE also calculates NES in
terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC
metric includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting
25 Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency
levels for each product class. The TSLs considered
for this SNOPR are described in section V.A of this
document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9year period.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas,
petroleum fuels), and thus presents a
more complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.26 DOE’s
approach is based on the calculation of
an FFC multiplier for each of the energy
types used by covered products or
equipment. For more information on
FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1
of this document.
2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended
standards for a covered product, DOE
must determine that such action would
result in significant energy savings. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings
offered by a new or amended energy
conservation standard cannot be
determined without knowledge of the
specific circumstances surrounding a
given rulemaking.27 For example, some
covered products and equipment have
most of their energy consumption occur
during periods of peak energy demand.
The impacts of these products on the
energy infrastructure can be more
pronounced than products with
relatively constant demand.
Accordingly, DOE evaluates the
significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis, taking into account the
significance of cumulative FFC national
energy savings, the cumulative FFC
emissions reductions, and the need to
confront the global climate crisis, among
other factors. DOE has initially
determined the energy savings from the
proposed standard levels are
‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides
seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy
conservation standard is economically
justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–
(VII)). The following sections discuss
how DOE has addressed each of those
seven factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a
potential amended standard on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA,
as discussed in section IV.J of this
26 The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s
statement of policy and notice of policy
amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
27 The numeric threshold for determining the
significance of energy savings established in a final
rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 8626,
8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70924).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6833
document. DOE first uses an annual
cash-flow approach to determine the
quantitative impacts. This step includes
both a short-term assessment—based on
the cost and capital requirements during
the period between when a regulation is
issued and when entities must comply
with the regulation—and a long-term
assessment over a 30-year period. The
industry-wide impacts analyzed include
(1) INPV, which values the industry on
the basis of expected future cash flows,
(2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in
revenue and income, and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate.
Second, DOE analyzes and reports the
impacts on different types of
manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE
considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and
manufacturing capacity, as well as the
potential for standards to result in plant
closures and loss of capital investment.
Finally, DOE takes into account
cumulative impacts of various DOE
regulations and other regulatory
requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures
of economic impact include the changes
in LCC and PBP associated with new or
amended standards. These measures are
discussed further in the following
section. For consumers in the aggregate,
DOE also calculates the national net
present value of the consumer costs and
benefits expected to result from
particular standards. DOE also evaluates
the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers
that may be affected disproportionately
by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared
to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the
savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the covered
product in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the covered product that
are likely to result from a standard. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts
this comparison in its LCC and PBP
analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase
price of a product (including its
installation) and the operating expense
(including energy, maintenance, and
repair expenditures) discounted over
the lifetime of the product. The LCC
analysis requires a variety of inputs,
such as product prices, product energy
consumption, energy prices,
maintenance and repair costs, product
lifetime, and discount rates appropriate
for consumers. To account for
uncertainty and variability in specific
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6834
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 moreefficient product through lower
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the
change in annual operating cost for the
year that standards are assumed to take
effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE
assumes that consumers will purchase
the covered products in the first year of
compliance with new or amended
standards. The LCC savings for the
considered efficiency levels are
calculated relative to the case that
reflects projected market trends in the
absence of new or amended standards.
DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is
discussed in further detail in section
IV.F of this document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of
energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy
conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic
justification of a standard, to consider
the total projected energy savings that
are expected to result directly from the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III))
As discussed in section III.E of this
document, DOE uses the NIA
spreadsheet models to project national
energy savings.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Products
In establishing product classes and in
evaluating design options and the
impact of potential standard levels, DOE
evaluates potential standards that would
not lessen the utility or performance of
the considered products. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data
available to DOE, the standards
proposed in this document would not
reduce the utility or performance of the
products under consideration in this
rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the
impact of any lessening of competition,
as determined in writing by the
Attorney General, that is likely to result
from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the
Attorney General to determine the
impact, if any, of any lessening of
competition likely to result from a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
proposed standard and to transmit such
determination to the Secretary within 60
days of the publication of a proposed
rule, together with an analysis of the
nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will
transmit a copy of this proposed rule to
the Attorney General with a request that
the Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’)
provide its determination on this issue.
DOE will publish and respond to the
Attorney General’s determination in the
final rule. DOE invites comment from
the public regarding the competitive
impacts that are likely to result from
this proposed rule. In addition,
stakeholders may also provide
comments separately to DOJ regarding
these potential impacts. See the
ADDRESSES section for information to
send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy
Conservation
DOE also considers the need for
national energy and water conservation
in determining whether a new or
amended standard is economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI))
The energy savings from the proposed
standards are likely to provide
improvements to the security and
reliability of the Nation’s energy system.
Reductions in the demand for electricity
also may result in reduced costs for
maintaining the reliability of the
Nation’s electricity system. DOE
conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how standards may affect the
Nation’s needed power generation
capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of
this document.
DOE maintains that environmental
and public health benefits associated
with the more efficient use of energy are
important to take into account when
considering the need for national energy
conservation. The proposed standards
are likely to result in environmental
benefits in the form of reduced
emissions of air pollutants and
greenhouse gases associated with energy
production and use, including in-home
emissions reductions experienced by
consumers, and their families. DOE
conducts an emissions analysis to
estimate how potential standards may
affect these emissions, as discussed in
section IV.K of this document; the
estimated emissions impacts are
reported in section V.B.6 of this
document. DOE also estimates the
economic value of climate and health
benefits from certain emissions
reductions resulting from the
considered TSLs, as discussed in
section IV.L of this document.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified, DOE may consider any other
factors that the Secretary deems to be
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII))
To the extent DOE identifies any
relevant information regarding
economic justification that does not fit
into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such
information under ‘‘other factors.’’
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a
rebuttable presumption that an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified if the additional cost to the
consumer of a product that meets the
standard is less than three times the
value of the first year’s energy savings
resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE
test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP
analyses generate values used to
calculate the effects that proposed
energy conservation standards would
have on the payback period for
consumers. These analyses include, but
are not limited to, the 3-year payback
period contemplated under the
rebuttable-presumption test. In addition,
DOE routinely conducts an economic
analysis that considers the full range of
impacts to consumers, manufacturers,
the Nation, and the environment, as
required under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this
analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s
evaluation of the economic justification
for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of
any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable
presumption payback calculation is
discussed in section IV.F.9 of this
proposed rule.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of
Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses
DOE has performed for this rulemaking
with regard to consumer conventional
cooking products. Separate paragraphs
address each component of DOE’s
analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to
estimate the impact of the standards
proposed in this document. The first
tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the
LCC savings and PBP of potential
amended or new energy conservation
standards. The national impacts
analysis uses a second spreadsheet set
that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and
net present value of total consumer
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
costs and savings expected to result
from potential energy conservation
standards. DOE uses the third
spreadsheet tool, the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), to
assess manufacturer impacts of potential
standards. These three spreadsheet tools
are available on the DOE website for this
rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/
docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/
document. Additionally, DOE used
output from the latest version of the
Energy Information Administration’s
(‘‘EIA’s’’) Annual Energy Outlook
(‘‘AEO’’), a widely known energy
projection for the United States, for the
emissions and utility impact analyses.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the
market and technology assessment that
provides an overall picture of the
market for the products concerned,
including the purpose of the products,
the industry structure, manufacturers,
market characteristics, and technologies
used in the products. This activity
includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily
on publicly available information. The
subjects addressed in the market and
technology assessment for this
rulemaking include (1) a determination
of the scope of the rulemaking and
product classes, (2) manufacturers and
industry structure, (3) existing
efficiency programs, (4) shipments
information, (5) market and industry
trends; and (6) technologies or design
options that could improve the energy
efficiency of consumer conventional
cooking products. The key findings of
DOE’s market assessment are
summarized in the following sections.
See chapter 3 of the TSD for this SNOPR
for further discussion of the market and
technology assessment.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
may establish separate standards for a
group of covered products (i.e., establish
a separate product class) if DOE
determines that separate standards are
justified based on the type of energy
used, or if DOE determines that a
product’s capacity or other
performance-related features that
justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)) In making a determination
whether a performance-related feature
justifies a different standard, DOE must
consider such factors as the utility to the
consumer of the feature and other
factors DOE determines are appropriate.
(Id.)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
6835
During the previous energy
conservation standards rulemaking for
cooking products, DOE evaluated
product classes for conventional
cooking tops based on energy source
(i.e., gas or electric). These distinctions
initially yielded two conventional
cooking top classes: (1) gas cooking
tops; and (2) electric cooking tops. For
electric cooking tops, DOE determined
that the ease of cleaning smooth
elements provides enhanced consumer
utility over coil elements. Because
smooth elements can use more energy
than coil elements, DOE defined two
separate product classes for electric
cooking tops. DOE defined the following
product classes for consumer
conventional cooking tops in the April
2009 Final Rule TSD (‘‘2009 TSD’’): 28
• Electric cooking tops—low or high
wattage open (coil) elements;
• Electric cooking tops—smooth
elements; and
• Gas cooking tops—conventional
burners.
In addition to the reasons presented
in the December 2020 NOPD and
discussed previously, DOE recognizes
that induction cooking tops are only
compatible with ferromagnetic cooking
vessels. However, DOE does not identify
any consumer utility unique to any
specific type of cookware that would
warrant establishing separate product
classes. As discussed in chapter 8 of the
TSD for this SNOPR, DOE considered
the cost of replacing cookware as part of
the LCC analysis. DOE also conducted
standby testing on full-surface induction
cooking tops. Based on DOE’s testing,
the sensors required to detect the
presence of a pot placed on the cooking
surface do not remain active while the
product is in standby mode. In addition,
DOE notes that the standby power
required for the tested model (0.25 watts
(‘‘W’’)) was below the average standby
power for other electric cooking tops in
DOE’s test sample (2.25 W). For these
reasons, DOE is not considering a
separate product class for induction
cooking products.
Induction Heating
Commercial-Style Cooking Tops
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE
proposed to maintain the product
classes for conventional cooking tops
from the previous standards rulemaking,
as discussed. 85 FR 80982, 80995. DOE
also proposed to consider induction
heating as a technology option for
electric smooth element cooking tops
rather than as a separate product class.
Id. DOE noted that induction heating
provides the same basic function of
cooking or heating food as heating by
gas flame or electric resistance, and that
the installation options available to
consumers are also the same for both
cooking products with induction and
with electric resistance heating. Id. In
addition, in considering whether there
are any performance-related features
that justify a higher energy use standard
to establish a separate product class,
DOE noted in the September 2016
SNOPR that the utility of speed of
cooking, ease of cleaning, and
requirements for specific cookware for
induction cooking tops do not appear to
be uniquely associated with higher
energy use compared to other electric
smooth element cooking tops with
electric resistance heating elements. 81
FR 60784, 60801.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding induction technologies in
response to the December 2020 NOPD.
28 The TSD from the previous residential cooking
products standards rulemaking is available at:
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2006-STD-0127/
document.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Based on DOE’s review of
conventional gas cooking tops available
on the market, DOE determined for
December 2020 NOPD that products
marketed as commercial-style cannot be
distinguished from standard residentialstyle products based on performance
characteristics or consumer utility. 85
FR 80982, 80995. While conventional
gas cooking tops marketed as
commercial-style have more than one
burner rated above 14,000 Btu/h and
cast-iron grates, approximately 50
percent of cooking top models marketed
as residential-style also have one or
more burners rated above 14,000 Btu/h
and cast-iron grates. Id.
As part of the December 2020 NOPD,
DOE considered whether separate
product classes for commercial-style gas
cooking tops with higher burner input
rates are warranted by comparing the
test energy consumption of individual
surface units in a sample of cooking
tops tested by DOE. Id. For the
September 2016 SNOPR analysis, DOE
conducted testing of gas surface units in
a sample of twelve gas cooking tops,
which included six products marketed
as commercial-style, according to the
test procedure established in the
December 2016 TP Final Rule and
determined that there was no
statistically significant correlation
between burner input rate and the ratio
of surface unit energy consumption to
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
6836
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
test load mass 29 for cooking tops
marketed as either residential-style or
commercial-style. 81 FR 60783, 60801–
60802. DOE noted that its testing
showed that this efficiency ratio for gas
cooking tops is more closely related to
burner and grate design rather than
input rate. Id. at 81 FR 60802.
DOE recognized in the December 2020
NOPD that the presence of certain
features, such as heavy cast-iron grates
and multiple high-input rate burners
(‘‘HIR burners’’), may help consumers
perceive a difference between
commercial-style and residential-style
gas cooking top performance. 85 FR
80982, 80996. However, DOE stated that
it was not aware of clearly defined and
consistent design differences and
corresponding utility provided by
commercial-style gas cooking tops as
compared to residential-style gas
cooking tops. Id. Although DOE’s testing
indicated there is a difference in energy
consumption between residential-style
and commercial-style gas cooking tops,
this difference could not be correlated to
any specific utility provided to
consumers. Id. Moreover, DOE stated
that it is not aware of an industry test
standard that evaluates cooking
performance and that would quantify
the utility provided by these products.
Id. While DOE stated in the December
2020 NOPD that it recognizes the
presence of certain commercial-style
features described by manufacturers
may allow consumers to cook with a
wide variety of cooking methods,
manufacturers have not provided
consumer usage data demonstrating that
consumers of commercial-style cooking
tops and residential-style cooking tops
employ significantly different cooking
methods during a typical cooking cycle.
Id. Moreover, DOE also stated that
manufacturers have not provided
evidence that consumers of commercialstyle cooking tops would use more
burners on a cooking top during a single
cooking cycle than consumers of
residential-style cooking tops. Id. DOE
noted that there are many residentialstyle cooking tops with one to two HIR
burners and continuous cast-iron grates
that provide consumers with the ability
to sear food at high temperatures and
simmer at low temperatures. Id. For
these reasons, DOE did not propose in
the December 2020 NOPD to establish a
separate product class for gas cooking
tops marketed as commercial-style or
29 Because the mass of the test load depends on
the input rate of the burner, the test energy
consumption must be normalized for comparison.
The higher the ratio of test energy consumption to
test load mass, the less efficient the surface unit.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
conventional gas cooking tops with
higher burner input rates. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding commercial-style gas cooking
tops in response to the December 2020
NOPD.
For this SNOPR analysis, DOE further
considered whether separate product
classes for commercial-style cooking
tops are warranted by comparing the
test energy consumption of burners in a
sample of cooking tops tested by DOE
according to new appendix I1. DOE
measured energy consumption of gas
burners in a sample of 24 gas cooking
tops, which included 11 products
marketed as commercial-style. The
number of burners per cooking top
ranged from four to six.
DOE’s testing, as presented in chapter
5 of the TSD for this SNOPR, showed
that energy consumption for gas cooking
tops continues to be more closely
related to burner and grate design rather
than input rate, as it was in the
September 2016 SNOPR analysis.
Based on both review of the market
and comments from manufacturers,
DOE recognizes that the presence of
certain features, such as heavy cast-iron
grates and multiple HIR burners, may
help consumers perceive a difference
between commercial-style and
residential-style gas cooking top
performance. However, DOE continues
to not be aware of clearly defined,
consistent design differences and
corresponding utility provided by
commercial-style gas cooking tops as
compared to residential-style gas
cooking tops. Although DOE’s testing
indicates there is a difference in energy
consumption between residential-style
and commercial-style gas cooking tops,
this difference could not be correlated to
any specific utility provided to
consumers. In addition, there are many
residential-style cooking tops with one
to two HIR burners and continuous castiron grates that provide consumers with
the ability to sear food at high
temperatures and simmer at low
temperatures. For these reasons, DOE is
not evaluating a separate product class
for commercial-style gas cooking tops.
However, as discussed in sections
IV.B.1.b and IV.C.1.a of this document,
DOE conducted its engineering analysis
consistent with products currently
available on the market and only
evaluated efficiency levels for gas
cooking tops that maintain the features
available in conventional cooking tops
marketed as commercial-style (e.g., at
least one HIR burners, continuous castiron gates, etc.) that may be used to
differentiate these products in the
marketplace.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Downdraft Cooking Tops
DOE is aware of conventional cooking
tops, including the cooking top portion
of conventional ranges, which
incorporate venting systems which draw
air, combustion products, steam, smoke,
grease, odors, and other cooking
emissions across the surface of the
cooking top and through a vent ducted
to the outdoors (‘‘downdraft venting
systems’’). The fan in downdraft venting
systems may be activated automatically
any time the cooking top is being
operated, through a control algorithm
that determines when the fan should be
activated, or by means of consumer
selection. Because indoor air quality
(‘‘IAQ’’) related to cooking emissions is
the subject of increasing attention and
concern,30 and because venting systems
designed to specifically exhaust the
emissions from conventional cooking
products have been shown to
significantly improve IAQ in homes,31
building codes in certain local
jurisdictions mandate the use of venting
systems for conventional cooking
products.32 Although these venting
systems may be external to and separate
from the conventional cooking product
(i.e., a vent hood over a conventional
cooking top or a separate downdraft
venting unit built into a countertop),
venting may also be accomplished by
means of a downdraft venting system
incorporated integrally in a
conventional cooking top. According to
DOE’s review of products on the market
and discussions with manufacturers, the
prevalence of conventional cooking tops
with integral downdraft venting systems
is increasing.
The energy consumption of an
integral downdraft venting system,
including the fan and, in some cases, a
motor to move the inlet duct into
position during operation, increases the
total annual energy consumption of a
conventional cooking top. At this time,
DOE does not have information
30 See, for example, the discussion and
recommendations addressing ‘‘Indoor Air Pollution
from Cooking’’ by the California Air Resources
Board, available at: ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/
documents/indoor-air-pollution-cooking.
31 Militello-Hourigan, R.E. and Miller, S.L., ‘‘The
impacts of cooking and an assessment of indoor air
quality in Colorado passive and tightly constructed
homes,’’ Building and Environment, October 15,
2018. Vol. 144, pp. 573–582. Research indicated
that fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations
from cooking activity in homes could be reduced
by at least 75 percent through the use of a directly
exhausting conventional range hood.
32 See, for example, Section 15.16.020 ‘‘Domestic
Range Hoods and Vents’’ of the San Clemente,
California, Mechanical Code, which requires that
‘‘[k]itchen range hoods shall be installed for
cooking facilities with an approved forced-draft
system of ventilation vented to the outside of the
building.’’
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
regarding the operating patterns or
consumer usage of downdraft venting
systems in conventional cooking tops
that would allow it to characterize
representative energy use. Therefore,
recognizing the importance of IAQ
issues and rapidly evolving market
demands, and so as to not impede
innovation in this area, DOE has not
evaluated the energy consumption of
downdraft venting systems nor is
proposing to establish separate product
classes for conventional cooking tops
with downdraft venting systems in this
SNOPR. DOE will continue to collect
information on such cooking tops and
may consider the impacts in a future
rulemaking.
Alternatively, DOE could consider
specifying an adder to the maximum
allowable IAEC value in the energy
conservation standards for conventional
cooking tops with a downdraft venting
system, which would account for the
energy consumption of the fan and any
motor operation during active mode and
any standby mode or off mode power
consumption specifically associated
with the downdraft venting system.
DOE seeks comment on the impacts of
downdraft venting systems on energy
consumption and associated data about
such impacts. DOE further requests
comment on its proposal to not include
the energy consumption of any
downdraft venting system in the energy
conservation standards for conventional
cooking tops.
Single-Zone Conventional Cooking Tops
DOE notes that some conventional
cooking tops are distributed in
commerce with only a single cooking
zone with a relatively high input power
for electric cooking tops or high burner
input rate for gas cooking tops. Singlecooking 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, saute´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 singlezone cooking tops that are not portable
conventional cooking tops also typically
manufacture and market comparable
dual-zone cooking tops with similar
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
construction and design features, and
consumers may choose to install nonportable single-zone cooking units in
combination with one or more of such
comparable dual-zone units to achieve
full cooking functionality. As a result,
DOE expects that evaluating the IAEC of
a single-zone non-portable cooking top
by itself would not be representative of
the average use of the product, and
therefore proposes that a more
representative value of IAEC would be
based on a tested configuration of the
typical combination of a single-zone
cooking top paired with one or more
additional cooking tops, such that the
combination of conventional cooking
tops in aggregate provides complete
functionality to the consumer.
Based on DOE’s review of
commercially available products, singlezone and dual-zone non-portable
cooking tops typically range in width
from 12 inches to 15 inches; DOE
therefore proposes that the most
representative pairing for the tested
configuration of a single-zone cooking
top would be the combination of one
single-zone cooking top and one
comparable dual-zone cooking top,
because the overall width of the
combination would not exceed the
width of typical conventional cooking
tops with four to six cooking zones (24
inches to 36 inches) and because this is
the minimum number of such cooking
tops that would ensure complete
functionality as previously described.
Based on its expectation that consumers
will select, to the extent possible,
matching products for this combination,
DOE proposes to define the tested
configuration of a single-zone nonportable cooking top as the single-zone
unit along with the same manufacturer’s
dual-zone non-portable cooking top unit
within the same product class and with
similar design characteristics (e.g.,
construction materials, user interface),
and use the same heating technology
(i.e., gas flame, electric resistive heating,
or electric inductive heating) and energy
source (e.g., voltage, gas type). DOE
expects that these products comprising
the test configuration typically would be
marketed as being within the same
‘‘product line’’ by manufacturers. In
instances where the manufacturer’s
product line contains more than one
dual-zone non-portable cooking top
unit, DOE proposes that the dual-zone
unit with the least energy consumption,
as measured using appendix I1, be
selected for the tested configuration,
which along with the single-zone
counterpart, would span the full range
of expected per-cooking zone energy
efficiency performance.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6837
In the approach DOE is proposing, the
representative IAEC of the single-zone
non-portable cooking top would factor
in the performance of the two additional
cooking zones included in the dual-zone
cooking top that is part of the tested
configuration. That is, the IAEC would
be based on the average active mode
performance of the three cooking zones
comprising the tested configuration.
Because the single-zone non-portable
cooking top contains one of the three
burners, while the comparable dualzone cooking top contains two, DOE
additionally proposes that the IAEC of
the single-zone non-portable cooking
top unit under consideration be
calculated as the weighted average of
the measured IAEC of the single-zone
cooking top and the IAEC dual-zone
cooking top in the tested configuration,
using the number of cooking zones as
the basis for the weighting factors; i.e.,
the single-zone IAEC would have a
weighting of 1⁄3 and the dual-zone IAEC
would have a weighting of 2⁄3.
Recognizing that the dual-zone cooking
top in the tested configuration would
already be separately tested to
determine its IAEC value for
certification purposes, to minimize
testing burden associated with this
approach, DOE is proposing that the
represented IAEC value of the dual-zone
cooking top (determined separately)
would be used in the calculation of the
single-zone cooking top’s represented
IAEC value (i.e., DOE is not requiring
the dual-zone cooking top to be tested
again for the purpose of determining the
represented IAEC value of the singlezone cooking top). DOE expects that this
approach will produce results that are
most representative for the tested
configuration. Further, DOE proposes
that if there is no dual-zone nonportable cooking top within the same
product class and with similar
construction and design features as the
single-zone non-portable cooking top
being tested, then consumers are likely
to purchase and install the single-zone
cooking top for use on its own; in that
case, the most representative IAEC of
the single-zone cooking top is the IAEC
of that product as measured according
to appendix I1.
DOE requests comment on its
proposed tested configuration and
determination of representative IAEC for
single-zone non-portable cooking tops.
DOE additionally proposes that a
cooking top basic model is an
individual cooking top model and does
not include any combinations of
cooking top models that may be
installed together. Accordingly, as part
of DOE’s proposal, each individual
cooking top model that may be installed
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6838
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
in combination must be rated as a
separate basic model, and any
combination of such cooking top models
that are typically installed in
combination does not itself need to have
a separate representation as its own
basic model. In other words, DOE does
not expect combinations to be
separately represented or certified to the
Department as their own basic models.
This proposal is consistent with the
current definition of a basic model at 10
CFR 430.2, which specifies that basic
model includes all units of a given type
of covered product (or class thereof)
manufactured by one manufacturer;
having the same primary energy source;
and, which have essentially identical
electrical, physical, and functional (or
hydraulic) characteristics that affect
energy consumption, energy efficiency,
water consumption, or water efficiency.
Therefore, DOE believes this
clarification is helpful to provide
specific context for cooking tops, but
DOE is not proposing specific
amendments to the basic model
definition in this rule.
DOE requests comment on its
proposal to not define ‘‘basic model’’
with respect to cooking products or
cooking tops, and on possible
definitions for ‘‘basic model’’ with
respect to cooking products or cooking
tops that could be used if DOE were to
determine such a definition is
necessary.
b. Conventional Ovens
During the first energy conservation
standards rulemaking for cooking
products, DOE evaluated product
classes for conventional ovens based on
energy source (i.e., gas or electric).
These distinctions initially yielded two
conventional oven product classes: (1)
gas ovens; and (2) electric ovens. DOE
more recently determined that the type
of oven-cleaning system is a utility
feature that affects performance. DOE
found that standard ovens and ovens
using a catalytic continuous-cleaning
process use roughly the same amount of
energy. On the other hand, self-clean
ovens use a pyrolytic process that
provides enhanced consumer utility
with lower overall energy consumption
as compared to either standard or
catalytically lined ovens. Therefore, in
the April 2009 Final Rule analysis
described in the 2009 TSD, DOE defined
the following product classes for
conventional ovens:
• Electric ovens—standard oven with
or without a catalytic line;
• Electric ovens—self-clean oven;
• Gas ovens—standard oven with or
without a catalytic line; and
• Gas ovens—self-clean oven.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
Self-Cleaning Technology
Based on DOE’s review of
conventional gas ovens available on the
U.S. market, and on manufacturer
interviews and testing conducted as part
of the engineering analysis, DOE noted
in the June 2015 NOPR that the selfcleaning function of a self-clean oven
may employ methods other than a hightemperature pyrolytic cycle to perform
the cleaning action.33 80 FR 33030,
33043. DOE clarified that a conventional
self-clean electric or gas oven is an oven
that has a user-selectable mode separate
from the normal baking mode, not
intended to heat or cook food, which is
dedicated to cleaning and removing
cooking deposits from the oven cavity
walls. Id. As part of the September 2016
SNOPR, DOE stated that it is not aware
of any differences in consumer behavior
in terms of the frequency of use of the
self-clean function that would be
predicated on the type of self-cleaning
technology rather than on cleaning
habits or cooking usage patterns that are
not dependent on the type of
technology. 81 FR 60784, 60804. As a
result, DOE did not consider
establishing separate product classes
based on the type of self-cleaning
technology in the December 2020
NOPD. Id.
For the reasons discussed previously,
DOE is not considering separate product
classes based on the type of selfcleaning technology.
DOE welcomes data on the consumer
usage patterns of pyrolytic versus nonpyrolytic self-cleaning functions in
conventional ovens, and requests
comment on its preliminary
determination that self-cleaning
technologies do not warrant separate
product class considerations.
Commercial-Style Ovens
With regard to gas oven burner input
rates, DOE noted in the June 2015 NOPR
that based on its review of the consumer
conventional gas ovens available on the
market, residential-style gas ovens
typically have an input rate of 16,000 to
18,000 Btu/h, whereas residential gas
ovens marketed as commercial-style
typically have burner input rates
ranging from 22,500 to 30,000 Btu/h.34
33 DOE noted that it is aware of a type of selfcleaning 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.
34 However, DOE noted that many gas ranges,
while marketed as commercial- or professional-style
and having multiple surface units with high input
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
80 FR 33030, 33043. Additional review
of both the residential-style and
commercial-style gas oven cavities
indicated that there is significant
overlap in oven cavity volume between
the two oven types. Id. Standard
residential-style gas oven cavity
volumes range from 2.5 to 5.6 cubic feet
(‘‘ft3’’) and gas ovens marketed as
commercial-style have cavity volumes
ranging from 3.0 to 6.0 ft3. Id. Sixty
percent of the commercial-style models
surveyed had cavity volumes between
4.0 and 5.0 ft3, while fifty percent of the
standard models had cavity volumes
between 4.0 and 5.0 ft3. Id. The primary
differentiating factor between the two
oven types was burner input rate, which
is greater than 22,500 Btu/h for
commercial-style gas ovens. Id.
DOE conducted testing for the June
2015 NOPR using the version of the test
procedure later adopted in the July 2015
TP Final Rule to determine whether
commercial-style gas ovens with higher
burner input rates warrant establishing
a separate product class. DOE evaluated
the cooking efficiency of eight
conventional gas ovens, including five
ovens with burners rated at 18,000 Btu/
h or less and the remaining three with
burner input rates ranging from 27,000
Btu/h to 30,000 Btu/h. Id. DOE’s testing
showed that the measured cooking
efficiencies for ovens with burner input
rates above 22,500 Btu/h were lower
than for ovens with ratings below
22,500 Btu/h, even after normalizing
cooking efficiency to a fixed cavity
volume. Id. at 80 FR 33044. DOE also
noted that the conventional gas ovens
with higher burner input rates in its test
sample were marketed as commercialstyle and had greater total thermal mass,
including heavier racks and thicker
cavity walls, even after normalizing for
cavity volume. Id. DOE’s testing of a
30,000 Btu/h oven suggested that much
of the energy input to commercial-style
ovens with higher burner input rates
goes to heating the added mass of the
cavity, rather than the test load,
resulting in relatively lower measured
efficiency when measured according to
the test procedure adopted in the July
2015 TP Final Rule. Id. DOE also
investigated the time it took each oven
in the test sample to heat the test load
to a final test temperature of 234 °F
above its initial temperature, as
specified in the DOE test procedure in
appendix I at the time of the testing. Id.
at 80 FR 33045. DOE’s testing showed
that gas ovens with burner input rates
greater than 22,500 Btu/h do not heat
the test load significantly faster than the
rates, did not have a gas oven with a burner input
rate above 22,500 Btu/h.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6839
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ovens with lower burner input rates,
and two out of the three units with the
higher burner input rates took longer
than the average time to heat the test
load. Id. Therefore, DOE concluded in
the June 2015 NOPR that there is no
unique utility associated with faster
cook times that is provided by gas ovens
with burner input rates greater than
22,500 Btu/h. Id.
Based on DOE’s testing, reverse
engineering, and additional discussions
with manufacturers, DOE posited in the
June 2015 NOPR that the major
differentiation between conventional
gas ovens with lower burner input rates
and those with higher input rates,
including those marketed as
commercial-style, was design and
construction related to aesthetics rather
than improved cooking performance. Id.
Further, DOE did not identify any
unique utility conferred by commercialstyle gas ovens. For the reasons
discussed above, DOE did not propose
in the June 2015 NOPR to establish a
separate product class for conventional
gas ovens with higher burner input
rates. Id.
As part of the September 2016
SNOPR, to further address whether
commercial-style ovens provide a
unique utility that would warrant
establishing a separate product class,
DOE conducted additional interviews
with manufacturers of commercial-style
cooking products and reviewed
additional commercial-style test data. 81
FR 60783, 60805–60806. While these
data demonstrated a difference in
energy consumption between
residential-style and commercial-style
ovens when measured according to the
test procedure adopted in the July 2015
TP Final Rule, this difference could not
be correlated to any specific utility
provided to consumers. Id. at 60806.
Moreover, DOE stated that it is not
aware of an industry test standard that
evaluates cooking performance and that
would quantify the utility provided by
these products. Id. DOE also noted that
all conventional ovens, regardless of
whether or not the product is marketed
as commercial-style, must meet the
same safety standards for the
construction of the oven. Id. American
National Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’)
Z21.1 ‘‘Household Cooking Gas
Appliances’’ (‘‘ANSI Z21.1’’), Section
1.21.1, requires that the oven structure,
and specifically the baking racks, have
sufficient strength to sustain a load of
up to 25 pounds depending on the
width of the rack. A similar standard
(Underwriters Laboratories (‘‘UL’’) 858
‘‘Household Electric Ranges’’ (‘‘UL
858’’)) exists for electric ovens.
DOE also observed as part of the
September 2016 SNOPR that many of
the design features identified by
manufacturers as unique to commercialstyle ovens and that may impact the
energy consumption, such as extension
racks, convection fans, cooling fans, and
hidden bake elements, are also found in
residential-style products. 81 FR 60783,
60806. DOE noted that the presence of
these features, along with thicker oven
cavity walls and higher burner input
rates, may help consumers perceive a
difference between commercial-style
and residential-style ovens. Id.
However, DOE stated in the September
2016 SNOPR that it was not aware of a
clearly defined and consistent design
difference and corresponding utility
provided by commercial-style ovens as
compared to residential-style ovens. Id.
For these reasons, DOE did not propose
in the September 2016 SNOPR, or in the
December 2020 NOPD to establish a
separate product class for commercialstyle ovens. Id. at 85 FR 80982, 80998.
DOE did not receive any comments on
the December 2020 NOPD regarding
commercial-style ovens. Based on DOE’s
analysis discussed previously, DOE is
not evaluating a separate product class
for commercial-style ovens in this
SNOPR.
Installation Configuration
As discussed in section III.C of this
document, in the October 2012 TP Final
Rule, DOE amended appendix I to
include methods for measuring fan-only
mode.35 Based on DOE’s testing of
freestanding, built-in, and slide-in
conventional gas and electric ovens,
DOE observed that all of the built-in and
slide-in ovens tested consumed energy
in fan-only mode, whereas freestanding
ovens did not. The energy consumption
in fan-only mode for built-in and slidein ovens ranged from approximately 1.3
to 37.6 watt-hours (‘‘Wh’’) per cycle,
which corresponds to 0.25 to 7.6 kWh/
year. Based on DOE’s reverse
engineering analyses, DOE noted that
built-in and slide-in products
incorporate an additional exhaust fan
and vent assembly that is not present in
freestanding products. The additional
energy required to exhaust air from the
oven cavity is necessary for slide-in and
built-in installation configurations to
meet safety-related temperature
requirements because the oven is
enclosed in cabinetry. For these reasons,
DOE proposed in the June 2015 NOPR,
September 2016 SNOPR, and December
2020 NOPD to include separate product
classes for freestanding and built-in/
slide-in ovens. 80 FR 33030, 33045; 81
FR 60784, 60806; 85 FR 80982, 80998.
DOE did not receive comment on its
proposal in the December 2020 NOPD to
include separate product classes for
built-in/slide-in ovens. For the reasons
discussed above, DOE analyzed separate
product classes for freestanding and
built-in/slide-in ovens for this SNOPR.
c. Evaluated Product Classes
In summary, DOE analyzed the
product classes listed in Table IV.1 for
this SNOPR.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE IV.1—PRODUCT CLASSES FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS
Product
class
Product type
1
2
Electric cooking top .......................................................
3
Gas cooking top.
4
5
6
7
Electric oven .................................................................
8
9
Gas oven .......................................................................
Sub-category
Installation type
Open (coil) elements.
Smooth elements.
Standard with or without a catalytic line .......................
Self-clean ......................................................................
35 Fan-only mode is an active mode that is not
user-selectable in which a fan circulates air
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
Standard with or without a catalytic line .......................
internally or externally to the cooking product for
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Freestanding.
Built-in/Slide-in.
Freestanding.
Built-in/Slide-in.
Freestanding.
Built-in/Slide-in.
a finite period of time after the end of the heating
function.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6840
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.1—PRODUCT CLASSES FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS—Continued
Product
class
Product type
Sub-category
10
11
Self-clean ......................................................................
DOE seeks comment on the product
classes evaluated in this SNOPR.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. Technology Options
In the preliminary market analysis
and technology assessment, DOE
identified technology options that
would be expected to improve the
efficiency of conventional cooking tops
and of conventional ovens. Initially,
these technologies encompass all those
that DOE believes are technologically
feasible. Chapter 3 of the TSD for this
SNOPR includes the detailed list and
descriptions of all technology options
identified for consumer conventional
cooking products.
AHAM stated that the available
technology options have not changed
since the April 2009 Final Rule.
(AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4)
GEA stated there have been no
technology improvements impacting
energy efficiency and no meaningful
energy savings opportunity in consumer
conventional cooking products since the
last standards rule and therefore there is
no justification for changing the current
standards. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2)
As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD
for this SNOPR, DOE has performed
market research and evaluated available
consumer conventional cooking
products to assess existing technology
options. Although DOE has found that
there are no specific new technology
options that impact energy efficiency
available since the April 2009 Final
Rule, manufacturers are innovating on
aspects of cooking performance that do
not relate to efficiency.
a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops
In response to the September 2016
SNOPR, DOE received comments from
AHAM opposing improved contact
conductance as a technology option for
electric open (coil) element cooking
tops. AHAM commented that the test
procedure specifies narrow tolerances
on the flatness of the test vessel, which
AHAM felt were appropriate to reduce
variability in test results. AHAM stated
that if a consumer does not use pots
with comparable flatness, any reduction
in energy consumption due to greater
flatness of the heating element that
would be measured using the test
procedure will not be realized in the
field. Based on its test data, AHAM
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Installation type
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
asserted that consumers are using
warped pans and that improving the
flatness of the heating element will not
achieve improved contact conductance.
AHAM stated, therefore, that the energy
savings associated with the improved
contact conductance technology option
measured under the test procedure is
not representative of what consumer
will experience in the field and, as a
result, this should not be considered as
a technology option. (AHAM, No. 64 at
pp. 7–10)
DOE agreed that, based on the test
data provided by AHAM, improving the
flatness of the electric coil heating
element may not result in energy
savings due to the warping of pots and
pans used by consumers. As a result,
DOE did not consider improved contact
conductance as a technology option for
electric open (coil) element cooking tops
for the December 2020 NOPD. 85 FR
80982, 80999.
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE
proposed to consider the technology
options for conventional electric
cooking tops listed in Table IV.2. Id. at
85 FR 80999–81000.
TABLE IV.2—DECEMBER 2020 NOPD
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL
ELECTRIC
COOKING
TOPS
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops:
1. None.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops:
1. Halogen elements.
2. Induction elements.
3. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
In response to the December 2020
NOPD, the CA IOUs requested that DOE
re-examine its reasoning for no longer
considering improved electric coils as a
technology option in electric open (coil)
element cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No. 89
at p. 5) The CA IOUs acknowledged that
pan warping over time is likely to occur,
however the CA IOUs do not believe
this should preclude DOE from
exploring improved electric coils as an
energy saving option. (Id.) The CA IOUs
also expressed doubt that energy savings
from improving contact conductance is
non-existent due to pan warping, stating
that AHAM’s own data confirms that
pan warping may, in some cases,
actually lessen the time it takes for a pot
of water to reach 200 °F on an electric
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Freestanding.
Built-in/Slide-in.
open (coil) element cooking top. (Id.
citing AHAM, No. 64 at p. 9)
DOE agrees that AHAM’s data show
that pan warping may, in some cases,
lessen the time it takes for a pot of water
to reach 200 °F on an electric open (coil)
element cooking top; however, AHAM’s
data also demonstrate that in other
cases, pan warpage may increase such
heating time. Given the inconsistent
relationship between pan warpage and
heat-up time, and the lack of
information regarding how cookware
may warp during typical consumer use,
manufacturers would be unable to
determine whether any modification to
the flatness of their coil heating
elements would improve contact
conductance. Therefore, DOE tentatively
concludes that greater flatness of the
heating element would not result in
energy savings for consumers, and
maintains its decision to not consider
improved contact conductance as a
technology option. DOE is also not
aware of any other technology options
to improve electric open (coil) element
cooking tops.
For electric open (coil) element
cooking tops, in this SNOPR, DOE did
not identify any technology options for
improving efficiency.
DOE seeks comment on any existing
technologies that improve the efficiency
of electric open (coil) element cooking
tops.
For electric smooth element cooking
tops, DOE has identified an additional
technology option: reduced air gap.
Typical radiant element cooking tops
have an air gap between the heating
element and the ceramic-glass cooking
top surface. Energy is expended to heat
the air between the heating element and
the glass, with that heated air providing
minimal heating to the cooking vessel.
One approach for increasing the
efficiency of a radiant element is to
reduce the air gap to reduce the amount
of wasted heat.
For electric smooth element cooking
tops, in this SNOPR, DOE considered
the technologies listed in Table IV.3.
TABLE IV.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
FOR ELECTRIC SMOOTH ELEMENT
COOKING TOPS
1. Halogen elements.
2. Induction elements.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS intermittent pilot ignition may not
FOR ELECTRIC SMOOTH ELEMENT achieve energy savings due to the
elimination of heat input that the gloCOOKING TOPS—Continued
3. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
4. Reduced air gap.
b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE
proposed to consider the technology
options for conventional gas cooking
tops listed in Table IV.4. 85 FR 80982,
80999–81000.
TABLE IV.4—DECEMBER 2020 NOPD
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL GAS COOKING TOPS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Radiant gas burners.
Catalytic burners.
Reduced excess air at burner.
Reflective surfaces.
Optimized burner and grate design.
DOE did not receive any comments on
the December 2020 NOPD regarding
additional technology options for gas
cooking tops.
For gas cooking tops, in this SNOPR,
DOE considered the technologies listed
in Table IV.5.
TABLE IV.5—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
FOR CONVENTIONAL GAS COOKING
TOPS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Catalytic burners.
Optimized burner and grate design.
Radiant gas burners.
Reduced excess air at burner.
Reflective surfaces.
c. Conventional Ovens
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE
proposed to consider the technology
options for conventional ovens listed in
Table IV.6. 85 FR 80982, 81003.
TABLE IV.6—DECEMBER 2020 NOPD
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL OVENS
Bi-radiant oven (electric only).
Forced convection.
Halogen lamp oven (electric only).
Improved and added insulation (standard ovens
only).
5. Improved door seals.
6. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
7. No oven-door window.
8. Oven separator (electric only).
9. Optimized burner and cavity design (gas only).
10. Reduced vent rate (electric standard ovens
only).
11. Reflective surfaces.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1.
2.
3.
4.
Based on review of the additional test
data provided by AHAM and GEA in
response to the September 2016 SNOPR,
in the December 2020 NOPD, DOE
agreed that replacing the intermittent
glo-bar ignition system with an
intermittent/interrupted ignition or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
bar contributes to the cavity and food
load, which must be offset by additional
gas consumption. Id. at 85 FR 81001. As
a result, DOE did not consider
intermittent/interrupted or intermittent
pilot ignition systems as a technology
option in the December 2020 NOPD. Id.
NEEA recommended that DOE
conduct its own testing to verify
whether or not there is an energy
savings opportunity from intermittent
pilot ignition systems compared to globar ignition systems. (NEEA, No. 88 at
p. 4)
NEEA has not provided any data or
information to suggest that intermittent
pilot ignition systems provide any
energy savings compared to glo-bar
ignition systems. DOE continues to
agree with AHAM’s theoretical assertion
that replacing the intermittent glo-bar
ignition system with an intermittent
pilot ignition would eliminate the heat
input that the glo-bar contributes to the
cavity and food load, which must be
offset by additional gas consumption.
Because this theory is supported by
AHAM’s test data, DOE continues to
consider that intermittent pilot ignition
systems would not provide energy
savings, and is not considering them as
a technology option in this SNOPR.
DOE requests information on the
potential energy savings associated with
intermittent pilot ignition systems.
For gas and electric ovens, in this
SNOPR, DOE considered the
technologies listed in Table IV.7.
TABLE IV.7—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
FOR CONVENTIONAL ELECTRIC AND
GAS OVENS
1.
2.
3.
4.
Bi-radiant oven (electric only).
Forced convection.
Halogen lamp oven (electric only).
Improved and added insulation (standard ovens
only).
5. Improved door seals.
6. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
7. No oven-door window.
8. Optimized burner and cavity design (gas only).
9. Oven separator (electric only).
10. Reduced vent rate (electric standard ovens
only).
11. Reflective surfaces.
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening
criteria to determine which technology
options are suitable for further
consideration in an energy conservation
standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility.
Technologies that are not incorporated
in commercial products or in
commercially viable, existing prototypes
will not be considered further.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6841
(2) Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service. If it is determined
that mass production of a technology in
commercial products and reliable
installation and servicing of the
technology could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the projected
compliance date of the standard, then
that technology will not be considered
further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a
technology is determined to have a
significant adverse impact on the utility
of the product to subgroups of
consumers, or result in the
unavailability of any covered product
type with performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as products
generally available in the United States
at the time, it will not be considered
further.
(4) Safety of technologies. If it is
determined that a technology would
have significant adverse impacts on
health or safety, it will not be
considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary
technologies. If a technology has
proprietary protection and represents a
unique pathway to achieving a given
efficiency level, it will not be
considered further, due to the potential
for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix
A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a
technology, or a combination of
technologies, fails to meet one or more
of the listed five criteria, it will be
excluded from further consideration in
the engineering analysis. The reasons
for eliminating any technology are
discussed in the following sections.
The following sections also include
comments from interested parties
pertinent to the screening criteria,
DOE’s evaluation of each technology
option against the screening analysis
criteria, and whether DOE determined
that a technology option should be
excluded (‘‘screened out’’) based on the
screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops
Based on DOE’s review of products
available on the market and its product
teardowns, DOE stated in the December
2020 NOPD that it is not aware of any
cooking tops that incorporate halogen
heating elements. Id. at 85 FR 81004.
Because this technology is currently not
being used commercially or in working
prototypes, DOE stated that it does not
believe that it would be practicable to
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6842
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
produce this technology in commercial
products on the scale necessary to serve
the market by the potential compliance
date of the proposed standards. Id. As
a result, DOE screened out halogen
elements from further analysis in the
December 2020 NOPD. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments on
the December 2020 NOPD regarding the
screening analysis for conventional
electric cooking tops.
In this SNOPR, DOE maintains its
tentative determination from the
December 2020 NOPD that it would not
be practicable to manufacture, install
and service halogen heating elements
for electric smooth element cooking tops
on the scale necessary to serve the
relevant market at the time of the
effective date of an amended standard,
and screened out this technology from
further consideration.
In this SNOPR, DOE is additionally
screening out a subset of low-standbyloss electronic controls, namely those
that use ‘‘automatic power-down’’
because this type of low-standby-loss
electronic controls may negatively
impact product utility. In particular, it
may result in a loss in the utility of the
continuous clock display for combined
cooking products, such as ranges.
However, it should be noted that the
other low-standby-loss electronic
controls such as switch-mode power
supplies (‘‘SMPSs’’) were still analyzed
in this SNOPR.
In this SNOPR, DOE is additionally
screening out reduced air gap as a
technology option because DOE is aware
that the air gaps in commercialized
radiant heating elements are currently
as small as is practicable to manufacture
on the scale necessary to serve the
cooking products market. Furthermore,
DOE is not aware of the magnitude of
potential energy savings from this
technology.
DOE requests comment on the
magnitude of potential energy savings
that could result from the use of a
reduced air gap as a technology option.
DOE seeks comment on its screening
analysis for conventional electric
cooking tops and whether any
additional technology options should be
screened out on the basis of any of the
screening criteria in this SNOPR.
b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
For conventional gas cooking tops, in
the September 2016 SNOPR and the
December 2020 NOPD, DOE screened
out radiant gas burners, catalytic
burners, reduced excess air at burner,
and reflective surfaces. 81 FR 60784,
60810–60811; 85 FR 80982, 81003.
In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
considered different efficiency levels
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
associated with the optimized burner
and grate design technology option that
it observed in products available on the
market, including a range of
commercial-style gas cooking tops that
maintain the utilities discussed
previously in section IV.A.1.a of this
document. 81 FR 60784, 60817. DOE
characterized the optimized burner and
grate design incremental efficiency
levels based on different observed
features (e.g., HIR burners, grate types
and material). Id.
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE
further noted that all gas cooking tops
on the market, including those with an
optimized burner and grate design, have
been certified to applicable safety
standards. 85 FR 80982, 81004.
However, DOE recognized that the
estimates for the energy savings
associated with optimized burner and
grate design may vary depending on the
test procedure, and thus screened out
this technology option from further
analysis of gas cooking tops in the
December 2020 NOPD. Id. DOE stated
that it would reevaluate the energy
savings associated with this technology
option if it considered performance
standards in a future rulemaking. Id.
NEEA recommended that, under an
updated test procedure, DOE continue
to evaluate screened out technologies
such as optimized burner and grate
design, because NEEA believes this
technology option has the potential to
impact efficiency significantly as it
affects heat transfer from the burner to
the pot or pan. (NEEA, No. 88 at pp. 3–
4) NEEA recommended that, under an
updated test procedure, DOE continue
to evaluate screened out technology
options that may improve heat transfer
between the burner and the cooking
vessel like the Turbo Pot product which
according to NEEA can improve
efficiency by 50 to 60 percent through
a fin design on the pot. (NEEA, No. 88
at p. 4) NEEA recommends that, under
an updated test procedure, DOE
continue to evaluate screened out
technology options that improve
transfer efficiency between the burner
and the cooking vessel including new
burner face materials (such as metal
mesh, ceramics, and metal foam) and
power burners instead of atmospheric
burners. (NEEA, No. 88 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs requested that DOE reexamine its reasoning for screening out
optimized grates and burners, because
the CA IOUs believe improvements to
this technology could ultimately lead to
a non-zero savings value for gas cooking
tops. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 4) The CA
IOUs added that if the withdrawn test
procedure is adequate to analyze the
efficiency improvements of grate design,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and overall performance improvement
of other product classes’ design features,
it should not preclude DOE from
considering technologically feasible
design improvements that would
improve energy efficiency in gas
cooking tops. (Id.)
As discussed in section III.C of this
document, DOE is considering
performance standards for cooking tops,
based on new appendix I1. Therefore, as
discussed in the December 2020 NOPD,
DOE is reevaluating the energy savings
associated with optimized burner and
grate design. As discussed in chapter 5
of the TSD for this SNOPR, DOE testing
has confirmed that optimizing the
burner and grate system can lead to
reduced energy consumption, as
measured under appendix I1. Therefore,
DOE is no longer screening out
optimized burner and grate design from
its analysis.
However, DOE is aware of a wide
range of optimized burner and grate
designs on the market, some of which
may reduce the consumer utility
associated with HIR burners and
continuous cast-iron grates. In this
SNOPR, DOE is screening out any
optimized burner and grate designs that
would reduce consumer utility by only
including in its analysis gas cooking
tops that include at least one HIR burner
and continuous cast-iron grates.
In this SNOPR, DOE is continuing to
screen out catalytic burners, radiant gas
burners, reduced excess air at burner,
and reflective surfaces, for the same
reasons as in the December 2020 NOPD.
DOE seeks comment on its screening
analysis for conventional gas cooking
tops and whether any additional
technology options should be screened
out on the basis of any of the screening
criteria in this SNOPR.
c. Conventional Ovens
For the same reasons discussed in the
September 2016 SNOPR, DOE screened
out added insulation, bi-radiant oven,
halogen lamp oven, no oven door
window, reflective surfaces, and
optimized burner and cavity design
from further analysis for conventional
ovens in the December 2020 NOPD. 81
FR 60784, 60811; 85 FR 80982, 81004.
The Joint Commenters stated that
DOE’s screening analysis was
inconsistent. (Joint Commenters, No. 87
at p. 2) In particular, the Joint
Commenters noted that technology
options like optimized burner and grate
design for gas cooking tops were
screened out due to the lack of a test
procedure whereas other technology
options that rely on a test procedure like
improved insulation and improved door
seals for conventional ovens were kept
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
in the analysis. (Id.) The Joint
Commenters added that new test
procedures should be established prior
to conducting analysis of potential
standards. (Id.)
As discussed above, DOE is no longer
screening out optimized burner and
grate design for gas cooking tops, due to
the existence of the new appendix I1
test procedure.
DOE agrees with the Joint
Commenters and recognizes that the
estimates for the energy savings
associated with improved insulation,
improved door seals and reduced vent
rate may vary depending on the test
procedure, and thus is screening out
these technology options from further
analysis of gas cooking tops in this
SNOPR. DOE will reevaluate the energy
savings associated with this technology
option if it considers performance
standards in a future rulemaking.
For the same reasons as discussed
above for conventional electric cooking
tops, DOE is continuing to screen out
the use of automatic power-down lowstandby-loss electronic controls. DOE is
aware that the use of automatic powerdown low-standby-loss electronic
controls may negatively impact product
utility. In particular, the use of
automatic power-down low-standbyloss electronic controls may result in a
loss in the utility of the continuous
clock display for ovens. However, it
should be noted that the other lowstandby-loss electronic controls such as
SMPSs were still analyzed.
Because DOE did not receive any
comments opposing the conventional
oven technology options screened out in
the December 2020 NOPD, for the same
reasons discussed in the December 2020
NOPD, DOE is continuing to screen out
added insulation, bi-radiant oven,
halogen lamp oven, no oven door
window, reflective surfaces, and
optimized burner and cavity design
from further analysis in this SNOPR.
DOE continues to seek comment on the
technology options screened out in this
SNOPR.
DOE seeks comment on its screening
analysis for conventional ovens and
whether any additional technology
options should be screened out on the
basis of any of the screening criteria in
this SNOPR.
not screen out the technology options
listed in Table IV.8.
TABLE IV.8—RETAINED DESIGN OPTIONS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops:
None.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops:
1. Induction elements.
2. Switch-mode power supply.
Gas Cooking Tops:
1. Optimized burner and grate design.
Conventional Ovens:
1. Forced convection.
2. Switch-mode power supply.
3. Oven separator (electric only).
DOE seeks comment on the retained
design options for consumer
conventional cooking products.
DOE has initially determined that
these technology options are
technologically feasible because they are
being used or have previously been used
in commercially available products or
working prototypes. DOE also finds that
all of the remaining technology options
meet the other screening criteria (i.e.,
practicable to manufacture, install, and
service and do not result in adverse
impacts on consumer utility, product
availability, health, or safety, uniquepathway proprietary technologies). For
additional details, see chapter 4 of the
TSD for this SNOPR.
2. Remaining Technologies
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).
Through a review of each technology,
DOE tentatively concludes that all of the
other identified technologies listed in
section IV.A.2 of this document met all
five screening criteria to be examined
further as design options in DOE’s
SNOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6843
incremental efficiency improvements
associated with incorporating specific
design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the
efficiency-level approach, the efficiency
levels established for the analysis are
determined based on the market
distribution of existing products (in
other words, based on the range of
efficiencies and efficiency level
‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the
market). Using the design option
approach, the efficiency levels
established for the analysis are
determined through detailed
engineering calculations and/or
computer simulations of the efficiency
improvements from implementing
specific design options that have been
identified in the technology assessment.
DOE may also rely on a combination of
these two approaches. For example, the
efficiency-level approach (based on
actual products on the market) may be
extended using the design option
approach to ‘‘gap fill’’ levels (to bridge
large gaps between other identified
efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate
to the max-tech level (particularly in
cases where the max-tech level exceeds
the maximum efficiency level currently
available on the market).
In this SNOPR, DOE is adopting a
design-option approach supported by
testing, supplemented by reverse
engineering (physical teardowns and
testing of existing products in the
market) to identify the incremental cost
and efficiency improvement associated
with each design option or design
option combination. The design-option
approach is appropriate for consumer
conventional cooking products, given
the lack of certification data to
determine the market distribution of
existing products and to identify
efficiency level ‘‘clusters’’ that already
exist on the market. DOE also conducted
interviews with manufacturers of
consumer conventional cooking
products following the February 2014
RFI to develop a deeper understanding
of the various combinations of design
options used to increase product
efficiency, and their associated
manufacturing costs.
DOE conducted testing and reverse
engineering teardowns on products
available on the market. Because there
are no performance-based energy
conservation standards or energy
reporting requirements for consumer
conventional cooking products, DOE
selected test units based on
performance-related features and
technologies advertised in product
literature.
For each product/equipment class,
DOE generally selects a baseline model
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
6844
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
as a reference point for each class, and
measures changes resulting from
potential energy conservation standards
against the baseline. The baseline model
in each product class represents the
characteristics of a product typical of
that class (e.g., capacity, physical size).
Generally, a baseline model is one that
just meets current energy conservation
standards, or, if no standards are in
place, the baseline is typically the most
common or least efficient unit on the
market.
For each product class for both
conventional cooking tops and
conventional ovens, DOE analyzed
several efficiency levels (‘‘ELs’’). As part
of DOE’s analysis, the maximum
available efficiency level is the highest
efficiency unit currently available on
the market. DOE also defines a ‘‘maxtech’’ efficiency level to represent the
maximum possible efficiency for a given
product.
In response to the September 2016
SNOPR, AHAM commented that the
manufacturer interviews in the earlier
stages of the rulemaking have little or no
meaning under the current proposed
test procedure. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 34–
35) AHAM commented that significant
changes to DOE’s analysis have
occurred since the manufacturer
interviews, including (a) the proposed
repeal of the oven test procedure;(b) the
proposal of an entirely different cooking
top test procedure; and (c) the entirely
different approach taken to both cooking
top and oven standards. (Id.) AHAM
commented that the September 2016
SNOPR was an entirely new proposal,
compared to previous proposals, that
was based on a totally new test
procedure with which manufacturers
had very little experience. (Id.)
In the December 2020 NOPD, before
the publication of the August 2022 TP
Final Rule, DOE was following the thencurrent version of the Process Rule
which indicated that a NOPD would be
warranted due to the potential energy
savings of the economically justified
efficiency levels being below the
mandatory threshold level. Therefore, at
the time of the December 2020 NOPD,
DOE did not conduct supplemental
manufacturer interviews. Since then,
two factors have changed to justify
DOE’s current SNOPR: first the Process
Rule has been amended and no longer
includes a mandatory threshold, and
second, the publication of the August
2022 TP Final Rule enabled DOE to
propose performance standards for
conventional cooking tops which have
higher energy saving potentials than the
design requirement standards
considered in the December 2020
NOPD. Accordingly, for this SNOPR,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
DOE sought updated manufacturer
feedback through confidential
interviews on issues relating to potential
energy conservation standards for both
conventional cooking tops and
conventional ovens.
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
The December 2020 NOPD was
published prior to the August 2022 TP
Final Rule establishing appendix I1,
which measures the energy
consumption of conventional cooking
tops. In the absence of a test procedure,
the efficiency levels defined in the
December 2020 NOPD were based on
prescriptive standards. Therefore, the
efficiency levels defined in the
December 2020 NOPD are no longer
relevant.
DOE’s test sample for this SNOPR
included 14 electric cooking tops, the
cooking top portion of 8 electric ranges,
13 gas cooking tops, and the cooking top
portion of 8 gas ranges for a total of 43
consumer conventional cooking tops
covering all of the product classes
considered in this analysis. The test unit
characteristics and appendix I1 test
results are available in chapter 5 of the
TSD for this SNOPR.
Baseline Efficiency Levels
For this SNOPR, DOE developed
performance-based baseline efficiency
levels for consumer conventional
cooking tops using the measured energy
consumption of units in the DOE test
sample. DOE determined the cooking
top IAEC for each cooking top in the test
sample based on the water heating test
procedure adopted in the August 2022
TP Final Rule.
The baseline cooking top efficiency
levels for this SNOPR differ from those
presented in the December 2020 NOPD.
As discussed, the cooking top efficiency
levels for this SNOPR were determined
using the test procedure finalized in the
August 2022 TP Final Rule, whereas the
analysis published in the December
2020 NOPD was based on the test
method adopted in the December 2016
TP Final Rule. As part of the August
2022 TP Final Rule, DOE defined IAEC
using an average of 418 cooking top
cycles per year to represent consumer
cooking frequency, as determined using
data from the 2015 RECS. By
comparison, the December 2016 TP
Final Rule used values of 207.5 and
214.5 cooking top cycles per year for
electric and gas cooking tops,
respectively, based on the 2009 RECS.
Primarily due to the updated number of
cooking top cycles per year (along with
some other minor changes to the test
procedure), the baseline IAEC values
calculated using the test method
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
finalized in the August 2022 TP Final
Rule are higher than the baseline IAEC
values presented in the December 2020
NOPD.
To establish the new baseline IAEC
values for cooking tops, DOE set the
baseline cooking top integrated annual
energy consumption (i.e., IAEC) equal to
the sum of the maximum cooking top
active annual energy consumption (i.e.,
AEC) observed in the dataset for the
analyzed product class and the
maximum combined low-power mode
annual energy consumption (‘‘ETLP’’)
observed in the dataset for the analyzed
product class. This approach is
consistent with the design-option
approach used to determine the
incremental efficiency levels, as
discussed further in chapter 5 of TSD
for this SNOPR. The consumer
conventional cooking top baseline
efficiency levels for this SNOPR,
expressed in kWh/year for electric
cooking tops and kBtu/year, are
presented in Table IV.9.
TABLE IV.9—CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING TOP BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Product class
Electric Cooking Tops—Open
(Coil) Elements.
Electric Cooking Tops—
Smooth Elements.
Gas Cooking Tops ...................
IAEC
199 kWh/year.
250 kWh/year.
1,775 kBtu/year.
DOE notes that the efficiency levels
for gas cooking tops evaluated in this
SNOPR would replace the current
prescriptive standards for gas cooking
tops which prohibits the use of a
constant burning pilot light. As such,
DOE’s proposed standards for gas
cooking tops would be only
performance standards. DOE notes that
constant burning pilot lights consume
approximately 2,000 kBtu/year and even
the baseline considered efficiency level
of 1,775 kBtu per year for gas cooking
tops would not be achievable by
products if they were to incorporate a
constant burning pilot.
DOE seeks comment on the
methodology and results for the
proposed baseline efficiency levels for
conventional cooking tops.
Incremental Efficiency Levels
i. Electric Cooking Tops
For the electric open (coil) element
cooking top product class, DOE did not
identify any design options for reducing
IAEC in this SNOPR and as a result,
DOE did not consider any higher
efficiency levels above the baseline.
For electric smooth element cooking
tops, as discussed, DOE measured the
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
AEC and ETLP of each cooking top in its
test sample for this SNOPR. DOE then
reviewed the AEC and ETLP values for
the electric smooth element cooking
tops in its test sample and identified
three higher efficiency levels that can be
achieved without sacrificing clock
functionality.
DOE defined EL 1 for electric smooth
element cooking tops based on the lowstandby-loss electronic controls design
option. As discussed above, DOE
defined the baseline efficiency assuming
the highest AEC would be paired with
the highest ETLP observed in its test
sample. DOE is aware of many methods
employed by manufacturers to achieve
lower ETLP, including by changing from
a linear power supply to an SMPS, by
dimming the control screen’s default
brightness, by allowing the clock
functionality to turn off after a period of
inactivity, and by removing the clock
from the cooking top altogether. DOE
defined EL 1 using the lowest measured
ETLP among the units in its test sample
with clock functionality, paired with the
baseline AEC, to avoid any potential
loss of utility from setting a standard
based on a unit without clock
functionality.
DOE defined EL 2 for electric smooth
element cooking tops using the lowest
measured AEC (highest efficiency)
among radiant cooking tops in its
sample and the same ETLP as EL 1. DOE
notes that, this AEC value can also be
reached by units using induction
technology.
To determine the highest measured
efficiency for electric smooth element
cooking tops, ‘‘max tech’’ or EL 3, DOE
calculated the sum of the lowest
measured AEC in its test sample of
electric smooth element cooking tops,
which represented induction
technology, and the same ETLP as EL 1.
DOE seeks comment on the
methodology and results for the
proposed incremental efficiency levels
for electric cooking tops.
ii. Gas Cooking Tops
In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
considered efficiency levels associated
with optimized burner and grate design
for conventional gas cooking tops. 81 FR
60783, 60817. DOE’s testing at the time
showed that energy use was correlated
to burner design (e.g., grate weight,
flame angle, distance from burner ports
to the cooking surface) and could be
reduced by optimizing the design of the
burner and grate system. DOE reviewed
the test data for the conventional gas
cooking tops in its test sample and
identified three efficiency levels
associated with improving the burner
and grate design. Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
Although DOE’s testing showed that
there was no statistically significant
correlation between burner input rate
and cooking energy consumption of the
cooking top, DOE noted that cooking
tops that incorporate different
combinations of burners, including HIR
burners for larger food loads, have
differing capabilities to cook or heat
different sized food loads. As a result,
DOE proposed multiple efficiency levels
that took into account key burner
configurations. Id. DOE defined EL 1 in
the September 2016 SNOPR based on an
optimized burner and improved grate
design of the unit in the test sample
with the lowest measured IAEC among
those with cast-iron grates and a sixsurface unit configuration with at least
four out of the six surface units having
burner input rates exceeding 14,000
Btu/h. Id. DOE selected these criteria to
maintain the full functionality of
cooking tops marketed as commercialstyle. Id. DOE noted that while there are
some such products with fewer than six
surface units and fewer than four HIR
burners, DOE did not observe any
products marketed as residential-style
with the burner configuration DOE
associated with Efficiency Level 1 of the
September 2016 SNOPR. Id.
DOE defined EL 2 in the September
2016 SNOPR based on an optimized
burner and further improved grate
design of the unit in the DOE test
sample with the lowest measured IAEC
among those units with cast-iron grates
and at least one surface unit having a
burner input rate exceeding 14,000 Btu/
h. Id. None of the gas units in the DOE
test sample marketed as commercialstyle were capable of achieving this
efficiency level. The cooking tops in the
DOE test sample capable of meeting this
efficiency level were marketed as
residential-style and had significantly
lighter cast-iron grates than the
commercial-style units. Id.
DOE defined EL 3 (max-tech) in the
September 2016 SNOPR based on the
unit in the DOE test sample with the
lowest measured IAEC among those
with cast-iron grates, regardless of the
number of burners or burner input rate.
Id. DOE noted that the grate weight for
this unit was not lowest in the DOE test
sample, confirming that a fully
optimized burner and grate design, and
not a reduction in grate weight alone, is
required to improve cooking top
efficiency.
In response to the September 2016
SNOPR, AHAM commented that there
were commercial-style products on the
market at that time with up to six HIR
burners. AHAM’s test data indicated
that cooking products meeting this
description were not able to meet DOE’s
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6845
Efficiency Level 1 as proposed in the
September 2016 SNOPR. (AHAM, No.
64 at p. 25) Because DOE’s proposed
standard level was designed to maintain
the full functionality of commercialstyle gas cooking tops, AHAM urged
DOE to propose a less stringent level for
gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 64 at p.
28)
DOE has preliminarily determined, as
discussed in section IV.B.1.b of this
document, that the utility of
commercial-style cooking products can
be met with a single HIR burner. For
this SNOPR, DOE considered efficiency
levels associated with optimized burner
and grate design, but only insofar as was
not screened out. DOE is aware that
some methods used by gas cooking top
manufacturers to achieve lower AEC can
result in a smaller number of HIR
burners.36 HIR burners provide unique
consumer utility and allow consumers
to perform high heat cooking activities
such as searing and stir-frying. DOE is
also aware that some consumers derive
utility from continuous cast-iron grates,
such as the ability to use heavy pans, or
to shift cookware between burners
without needing to lift them. Because of
this, as discussed in IV.B.1.b of this
document, DOE has defined the ELs for
gas cooking tops such that all ELs are
achievable with continuous cast-iron
grates and at least one HIR burner.
DOE’s testing showed that energy use
was correlated to burner design and
cooking top configuration (e.g., grate
weight, flame angle, distance from
burner ports to the cooking surface) and
could be reduced by optimizing the
design of the burner and grate system.
DOE reviewed the test data for the gas
cooking tops in its test sample and
identified two efficiency levels
associated with improving the burner
and grate design that corresponded to
different design criteria. DOE defined
EL 1 and EL 2 for gas cooking tops using
the same ETLP as used for the baseline
efficiency level.
DOE seeks comment on the
methodology and results for the
proposed incremental efficiency levels
for gas cooking tops.
iii. Analyzed Efficiency Levels
As discussed, DOE established
efficiency levels for electric smooth
element cooking tops and for gas
cooking tops based on combining an
AEC value and an ETLP value associated
with specific design options, noting that
different combinations of AEC and ETLP
could be used to meet the IAEC of a
36 DOE defines a high-input rate burner as a
burner with an input rate greater than or equal to
14,000 Btu/h.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6846
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
given efficiency level. Table IV.10
through Table IV.12 show the efficiency
levels for each cooking top product class
that are evaluated in this SNOPR.
TABLE IV.10—ELECTRIC OPEN (COIL) ELEMENT COOKING TOP EFFICIENCY LEVELS
IAEC
(kWh/year)
Level
Baseline ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
199
TABLE IV.11—ELECTRIC SMOOTH ELEMENT COOKING TOP EFFICIENCY LEVELS
IAEC
(kWh/year)
Level
Design options
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
Baseline ...................................................................................................................................................
Baseline + Low-Standby-Loss Electronic Controls .................................................................................
1 + Improved Resistance Heating Elements ..........................................................................................
1 + Highest Active Mode Efficiency (Induction) ......................................................................................
250
207
189
179
TABLE IV.12—GAS COOKING TOP EFFICIENCY LEVELS
IAEC
(kBtu/year)
Level
Design options
Baseline .........................
1 .....................................
Baseline ...................................................................................................................................................
Baseline + Optimized Burner/Improved Grates (Achievable with 4 or more HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates).
Highest Measured Efficiency ..................................................................................................................
2 .....................................
b. Conventional Ovens
corresponding to prescriptive design
requirements as defined by the design
options developed as part of the
screening analysis (see section IV.B of
this document): forced convection, the
use of a switch-mode power supply, and
an oven separator.
Potential Prescriptive Standards
As discussed in section III.C of this
document, there are no current test
procedures for conventional ovens.
Therefore, in this SNOPR, DOE is
considering only efficiency levels
1,775
1,440
1,204
DOE ordered the design options by
ease of implementation. Table IV.13 and
Table IV.14 define the efficiency levels
analyzed in this SNOPR for
conventional electric and gas ovens,
respectively.
TABLE IV.13—CONVENTIONAL ELECTRIC OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Level
Design option
Baseline .......................................................................................................................................................................
1 ...................................................................................................................................................................................
2 ...................................................................................................................................................................................
3 ...................................................................................................................................................................................
Baseline.
Baseline + SMPS.
1 + Forced Convection.
2 + Oven Separator.
TABLE IV.14—CONVENTIONAL GAS OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Level
Design option
Baseline .......................................................................................................................................................................
1 ...................................................................................................................................................................................
2 ...................................................................................................................................................................................
Baseline.
Baseline + SMPS.
1 + Forced Convection.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Note: All efficiency levels for conventional gas ovens include the current prescriptive requirement prohibiting the use of a constant burning pilot
light.
In this SNOPR, DOE is assuming that
a baseline conventional oven uses a
linear power supply, based on DOE’s
analysis of these products. A linear
power supply typically produces
unregulated as well as regulated power.
The main characteristic of an
unregulated power supply is that its
output may contain significant voltage
ripple and that the output voltage will
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of a transformer that steps AC line
voltage down, a voltage rectifier circuit
for AC to DC conversion, and a
capacitor to produce unregulated, DC
output. However, there are other means
of producing and implementing an
unregulated power supply such as
transformerless capacitive and/or
resistive rectification circuits. Within a
linear power supply, the unregulated
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
output serves as an input into a single
or multiple voltage-regulating devices.
Such regulating devices include Zener
diodes, linear voltage regulators, or
similar components which produce a
lower-potential, regulated power output
from a higher-potential DC input. This
approach results in a rugged power
supply which is reliable, but typically
has an efficiency of about 40 percent.
For EL 1, DOE is analyzing the use of
an SMPS rather than a linear power
supply. An SMPS can reduce the
standby mode energy consumption for
conventional ovens due to their higher
conversion efficiencies of up to 75
percent in appliance applications for
power supply sizes similar to those of
conventional ovens. An SMPS also
reduces the no-load standby losses. In
this SNOPR, DOE is considering EL 1 to
correspond to the prescriptive
requirement that the conventional oven
not be equipped with a linear power
supply.
For EL 2, DOE is analyzing the use of
forced convection. A forced convection
oven uses a fan to distribute warm air
evenly throughout the oven cavity. The
use of forced circulation can reduce fuel
consumption by cooking food more
quickly, at lower temperatures, and in
larger quantities than a natural
convection oven of the same size and
rating. Ovens can use convection
heating elements in addition to
resistance and other types of elements to
speed up the cooking process. By using
different cooking elements where they
are most effective, such combination
ovens can reduce the time and energy
consumption required to cook food. As
described further in chapter 5 of the
TSD for this SNOPR, DOE performed
testing on consumer conventional ovens
in support of this rulemaking to
determine the improvement in cooking
efficiency associated with forced
convection. Included in the DOE test
sample were four gas ovens and two
electric ovens equipped with forced
convection. DOE compared the
measured energy consumption of each
oven in bake mode to the average energy
consumption of bake mode and
convection mode (including energy
consumption due to the fan motor) as
specified in the test procedure. The
relative decrease in active mode energy
consumption resulting from the use of
forced convection in consumer
conventional ovens ranged from 3.5 to
7.5 percent depending on the product
class. In this SNOPR, DOE is
considering EL 2 to correspond to the
prescriptive requirement that the
conventional oven be equipped with a
convection fan. This prescriptive
requirement would not preclude a non-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
convection mode being offered
selectable by the consumer.
For EL 3, DOE is analyzing the use of
an oven separator, for electric ovens
only.37 For loads that do not require the
entire oven volume, an oven separator
can be used to reduce the cavity volume
that is used for cooking. With less oven
volume to heat, the energy used to cook
an item would be reduced. The oven
separator considered here is the type
that can be easily and quickly installed
by the user. The side walls of the oven
cavity would be fitted with ‘‘slots’’ that
guide and hold the separator into
position, and a switch to indicate when
the separator has been installed. The
oven would also require at least two
separate heating elements to heat the
two cavities. Different pairs of ‘‘slots’’
would be spaced throughout the oven
cavity so that the user could select
different positions to place the
separator. In this SNOPR, DOE is
considering EL 3 to correspond to the
prescriptive requirement that the
conventional electric oven be equipped
with an oven separator.
DOE seeks comment on the
definitions of the proposed efficiency
level for conventional ovens.
Energy Consumption of Baseline
Efficiency Level
As noted in the December 2020
NOPD, DOE’s test sample for
conventional ovens included one gas
wall oven, seven gas ranges, five electric
wall ovens, and two electric ranges for
a total of 15 conventional ovens
covering all of the considered product
classes. DOE conducted testing
according to the test procedure adopted
in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. 81 FR
60784, 60812. However, as discussed
previously, in this SNOPR, DOE is
considering only efficiency levels
corresponding to prescriptive design
requirements. In order to develop
estimated energy consumption rates for
each efficiency level, in support of the
Energy Use analysis (see section IV.E of
this document), DOE based its analyses
on the data measured using the nowrepealed test procedure.
The integrated annual oven energy
consumption (‘‘IEAO’’ 38) for each
37 Oven separators are not used in conventional
gas ovens because they would interfere with the
combustion air flow and venting requirements for
the separate gas burners on the top and bottom of
the oven cavity.
38 In this SNOPR, DOE refers to the integrated
annual oven energy consumption using the
abbreviation IEAO, rather than IAEC, as was used in
previous documents in this rulemaking. This
change is being made to emphasize the difference
between the IAEC values used for conventional
cooking tops which were measured according to the
new appendix I1 and the energy use values used for
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6847
consumer conventional oven in DOE’s
test sample was broken down into its
component parts: the energy of active
cooking mode, EAO (including any selfcleaning operation); fan-only mode, for
built-in/slide-in ovens as applicable;
and combined low-power mode, ETLP
(including standby mode and off mode).
Because oven cooking efficiency and
energy consumption depend on cavity
volume, DOE normalized IEAO to a
representative cavity volume of 4.3 ft3
using the relationship between energy
consumption and cavity volume
discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD for
this SNOPR to allow for more direct
comparison between units in the test
sample.
As part of the September 2016
SNOPR, DOE developed energy
consumption values for the baseline
efficiency levels for conventional ovens
considering both data from the previous
standards rulemaking and the measured
energy use for the test units. DOE
conducted testing for all units in its test
sample to measure integrated annual
energy consumption, which included
energy use in active mode (including
fan-only mode) and standby mode. 81
FR 60784, 60814. As discussed in the
September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
augmented its analysis of electric
standard ovens by considering the
energy use of the electric self-clean
units in its test sample, adjusted to
account for the differences between
standard-clean and self-clean ovens.
Augmenting the electric standard oven
dataset with self-clean models from the
DOE test sample allowed DOE to
consider a wider range of cavity
volumes in its analysis. 81 FR 60784,
60815. To establish the estimated energy
consumption values for the baseline
efficiency levels for conventional ovens,
DOE first derived a relationship
between energy consumption and cavity
volume. Using the slope from the
previous rulemaking, DOE selected new
intercepts corresponding to the ovens in
its test sample with the lowest
efficiency, so that no ovens in the test
sample were cut off by the baseline
curve. DOE then set baseline standby
energy consumption for conventional
ovens equal to that of the oven
(including the oven component of a
range) with the highest standby energy
consumption in DOE’s test sample to
maintain the full functionality of
controls for consumer utility. In
response to the September 2016 SNOPR,
DOE did not receive comment on the
baseline efficiency levels considered for
conventional ovens which were measured
according to the test procedure as finalized in the
July 2015 TP Final Rule.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6848
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
conventional ovens. 85 FR 80982,
81011. Thus, DOE did not modify the
baseline levels for conventional ovens
in the December 2020 NOPD.
As part of the December 2020 NOPD,
DOE evaluated the baseline efficiency
levels presented in Table IV.15, which
also presents the energy consumption
values for each product class which are
based on an oven with a cavity volume
of 4.3 ft3. Id.
TABLE IV.15—DECEMBER 2020 NOPD PROPOSED CONVENTIONAL OVEN BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Product class
Sub type
Electric Oven—Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line ............................
Freestanding ..........................................
Built-in/Slide-in .......................................
Freestanding ..........................................
Built-in/Slide-in .......................................
Freestanding ..........................................
Built-in/Slide-in .......................................
Freestanding ..........................................
Built-in/Slide-in .......................................
Electric Oven—Self-Clean Oven .............................................................................
Gas Oven—Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line .................................
Gas Oven—Self-Clean Oven ..................................................................................
IEAO*
315.2 kWh/year.
322.3 kWh/year.
354.9 kWh/year.
362.0 kWh/year.
2083.1 kBtu/year.
2093.0 kBtu/year.
1959.6 kBtu/year.
1969.6 kBtu/year.
* IEAO values are normalized based on a 4.3 ft3 volume oven.
For this SNOPR, DOE expanded its
sample size of conventional ovens and
ranges which were used to determine
the baseline ETLP value. DOE calculated
the baseline ETLP using the highest
combined low-power mode measured
power on a conventional range with a
linear power supply. DOE also rectified
a formula error which was incorrectly
allocating the number of hours in fanonly mode. These small changes
resulted in slightly updated estimated
energy consumption representing the
baseline efficiency levels.
The evaluated baseline efficiency
levels for consumer conventional ovens
are presented in Table IV.16. After
receiving manufacturer feedback and
reviewing products currently on the
market, DOE determined the energy
consumption of the baseline efficiency
levels based on an oven with a cavity
volume of 4.3 ft3 to represent the
market-average cavity volume.
TABLE IV.16—ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF BASELINE CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL OVENS
Product class
Sub type
Electric Oven—Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line ............
Freestanding ..................................
Built-in/Slide-in ...............................
Freestanding ..................................
Built-in/Slide-in ...............................
Freestanding ..................................
Built-in/Slide-in ...............................
Freestanding ..................................
Built-in/Slide-in ...............................
Electric Oven—Self-Clean Oven .............................................................
Gas Oven—Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line .................
Gas Oven—Self-Clean Oven ..................................................................
IEAO*
314.7 kWh/year.
321.2 kWh/year.
354.4 kWh/year.
360.5 kWh/year.
2085 kBtu/year.
2104 kBtu/year.
1958 kBtu/year.
1979 kBtu/year.
* IEAO values are normalized based on a 4.3 ft3 volume oven.
Energy Consumption of Incremental
Efficiency Levels
For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
developed incremental efficiency levels
for each conventional oven product
class by first considering information
from the previous rulemaking analysis
described in the 2009 TSD. In cases
where DOE identified design options
during testing and reverse engineering
teardowns, DOE updated the efficiency
levels based on the tested data. 81 FR
60784, 60818. Table IV.17 through Table
IV.20 present the efficiency levels for
each product class proposed in the
September 2016 SNOPR, along with the
associated estimated energy
consumption normalized based on an
oven with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft3. In
response to the September 2016 SNOPR,
DOE did not receive comment on the
incremental efficiency levels considered
for conventional ovens. Id. Thus, DOE
did not modify the incremental levels
for conventional ovens in the December
2020 NOPD. 85 FR 80982, 81015.
TABLE IV.17—DECEMBER 2020 NOPD EVALUATED ELECTRIC STANDARD OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS
IEAO
(kWh/year)
Level
Design option
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Freestanding
Baseline ............................
1 ........................................
2 ........................................
3 ........................................
4 ........................................
5 ........................................
6 ........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Baseline ....................................................................................................................
Baseline + SMPS .....................................................................................................
1 + Reduced Vent Rate ...........................................................................................
2 + Improved Insulation ...........................................................................................
3 + Improved Door Seals .........................................................................................
4 + Forced Convection ............................................................................................
5 + Oven Separator .................................................................................................
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
315.2
306.3
291.9
278.0
273.2
261.7
220.6
Built-in/
slide-in
322.3
313.3
299.0
285.0
280.3
268.7
227.7
6849
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.18—DECEMBER 2020 NOPD EVALUATED ELECTRIC SELF-CLEAN OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS
IEAO
(kWh/year)
Level
Design option
Built-in/
slide-in
Freestanding
Baseline ............................
1 ........................................
2 ........................................
3 ........................................
Baseline ....................................................................................................................
Baseline + SMPS .....................................................................................................
1 + Forced Convection ............................................................................................
2 + Oven Separator .................................................................................................
354.9
346.0
327.3
277.8
362.0
353.0
334.3
284.7
TABLE IV.19—DECEMBER 2020 NOPD EVALUATED GAS STANDARD OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS
IEAO
(kBtu/year)
Level
Design option
Built-in/
slide-in
Freestanding
Baseline ............................
1 ........................................
2 ........................................
3 ........................................
4 ........................................
Baseline ....................................................................................................................
Baseline + SMPS .....................................................................................................
1 + Improved Insulation ...........................................................................................
2 + Improved Door Seals .........................................................................................
3 + Forced Convection ............................................................................................
2083.1
2052.5
1946.4
1926.6
1832.9
2093.0
2062.4
1955.8
1935.9
1841.7
TABLE IV.20—DECEMBER 2020 NOPD EVALUATED GAS SELF-CLEAN OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS
IEAO
(kBtu/year)
Level
Design option
Freestanding
Baseline ............................
1 ........................................
2 ........................................
Baseline ....................................................................................................................
Baseline + SMPS .....................................................................................................
1 + Forced Convection ............................................................................................
DOE developed the incremental
efficiency levels for each design option
identified as a result of the screening
analysis. DOE then developed estimated
energy consumption values for each
efficiency level based on test data
collected according to the earlier
version of the oven test procedure
established in the July 2015 TP Final
Rule. The details of the methodology
used to estimate the energy
consumption of each efficiency level for
each product class are available in
chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
DOE’s testing of freestanding, built-in,
and slide-in installation configurations
for consumer conventional gas and
electric ovens revealed that built-in and
slide-in ovens have a fan that consumes
energy in fan-only mode, whereas
freestanding ovens do not have such a
fan. For this SNOPR, DOE developed
1959.6
1929.0
1830.5
Built-in/
slide-in
1969.6
1939.0
1839.9
separate energy consumption values for
each installation configuration.
Table IV.21 and Table IV.22 show the
efficiency levels for each consumer
conventional oven product class
analyzed in this SNOPR. The IEAO
values for each efficiency level are
normalized based on an oven cavity
volume of 4.3 ft3.
TABLE IV.21—ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS
IEAO
(kBtu/year)
Level
Design option
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Standard
freestanding
Baseline .........................
1 ....................................
2 ....................................
3 ....................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Baseline ...............................................................
Baseline + SMPS .................................................
1 + Forced Convection ........................................
2 + Oven Separator .............................................
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Standard
built-in/
slide-in
314.7
302.0
289.0
235.3
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
321.2
308.9
295.9
242.1
01FEP2
Self-clean
freestanding
354.4
341.7
328.7
275.0
Self-clean
built-in/
slide-in
360.5
348.1
335.1
281.4
6850
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.22—ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF GAS OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS
IEAO
(kBtu/year)
Level
Design option
Standard
freestanding
Baseline .........................
1 ....................................
2 ....................................
Baseline ...............................................................
Baseline + SMPS .................................................
1 + Forced Convection ........................................
DOE seeks comment on the
methodology and results for the
estimated energy use of each proposed
efficiency level for conventional ovens.
Energy Use Versus Cavity Volume
The energy consumption of the
conventional oven efficiency levels
detailed above are predicated upon
ovens with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft3.
Based on DOE’s testing of conventional
gas and electric ovens and discussions
with manufacturers, energy use scales
with oven cavity volume due to larger
ovens having higher thermal masses and
larger volumes of air (including larger
vent rates) than smaller ovens. Because
the DOE test procedure adopted in the
July 2015 TP Final Rule for measuring
IEAO uses a fixed test load size, larger
ovens with higher thermal mass will
have a higher measured IEAO. As a
result, DOE considered available data to
characterize the relationship between
energy use and oven cavity volume.
For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
established the slopes by first evaluating
the data from the previous rulemaking
analysis described in the 2009 TSD,
which presented the relationship
between measured energy factor (‘‘EF’’)
and cavity volume, then translating
from EF to IEAO, considering the range
of cavity volumes for the majority of
products available on the market as well
as testing of units in DOE’s test sample.
The intercepts for each efficiency level
were then chosen so that the equations
Standard
built-in/
slide-in
2085
2041
1908
passed through the desired IEAO
corresponding to a particular volume.
81 FR 60784, 60821–60822. As part of
the analysis for the December 2020
NOPD, DOE updated the intercepts in
the IEAO versus cavity volume
relationships for each product class to
reflect the revisions to the efficiency
levels made in that analysis.
In this SNOPR, DOE further updated
the efficiency levels, and associated
IEAO intercepts. Additional discussion
of DOE’s derivation of the oven IEAO
versus cavity volume relationship is
presented in chapter 5 of the TSD for
this SNOPR.
2. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the
engineering analysis is conducted using
one or a combination of cost
approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors,
including the availability and reliability
of public information, characteristics of
the regulated product, the availability
and timeliness of purchasing the
product on the market. The cost
approaches are summarized as follows:
• Physical teardowns: Under this
approach, DOE physically dismantles a
commercially available product,
component-by-component, to develop a
detailed bill of materials for the product.
• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of
physically deconstructing a product,
DOE identifies each component using
parts diagrams (available from
manufacturer websites or appliance
Self-clean
freestanding
2104
2062
1929
Self-clean
built-in/
slide-in
1958
1915
1781
1979
1937
1804
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 costprohibitive and otherwise impractical
(e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE
conducts price surveys using publicly
available pricing data published on
major online retailer websites and/or by
soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the present case, DOE conducted
the analysis using physical and catalog
teardowns. The resulting bill of
materials provides the basis for the
manufacturer production cost (‘‘MPC’’)
estimates.
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
For the December 2020 NOPD, DOE
maintained its estimates for the
incremental MPCs developed for the
September 2016 SNOPR, but adjusted
the cost-efficiency results to reflect
updates to parts pricing estimates and
the most recent PPI data. 85 FR 80982,
81018. DOE also updated the costefficiency results to reflect the revised
efficiency levels in that analysis. Id. The
estimates for the incremental MPCs
considered in the December 2020 NOPD
are presented in Table IV.23.
TABLE IV.23—DECEMBER 2020 NOPD CONVENTIONAL COOKING TOP INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION
COSTS
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
[2018$]
NOPD level
Electric open (coil)
element cooking tops
Electric smooth
element cooking tops
Gas cooking tops
Baseline ...............................................................................................
1 ...........................................................................................................
2 ...........................................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
$0.69
1.81
198.33
................................
................................
................................
................................
For this SNOPR, DOE developed the
cost-efficiency results for each
conventional cooking top product class
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
with incremental efficiency levels
shown in Table IV.24 and Table IV.25.
DOE developed incremental MPCs
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
based on manufacturing cost modeling
of units in its sample featuring the
design options.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6851
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
As discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD
for this SNOPR, DOE evaluated two
versions of the optimized burner and
grate design option, representative of a
minimum of either 4 or 1 HIR burners.
DOE’s testing showed that decreased
energy use could be correlated to burner
design and cooking top configuration
(e.g., grate weight, flame angle, distance
from burner ports to the cooking
surface). Because this design option
effectively corresponds to a whole
burner and grate system re-design,
regardless of the efficiency level
achieved by the re-design, the
incremental costs for EL 1 and for EL 2
for gas cooking tops include the cost for
redesigning the combination of each
burner and grate configuration.
Therefore, DOE was not able to
determine different incremental costs
for EL 1 and EL 2 for gas cooking tops.
TABLE IV.24—ELECTRIC SMOOTH ELEMENT COOKING TOPS INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS
Incremental MPC
(2021$)
Level
Design option
1 ....................................
2 ....................................
3 ....................................
Baseline + Low-Standby-Loss Electronic Controls ..........................................................................
1 + Improved Resistance Heating Elements ...................................................................................
1 + Highest Active Mode Efficiency (Induction) ...............................................................................
$2.17
11.05
263.19
TABLE IV.25—GAS COOKING TOPS MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS
Incremental MPC
(2021$)
Level
Design option
1 ....................................
Baseline + Optimized Burner/Improved Grates (Achievable with 4 or more HIR burners and
continuous cast-iron grates).
Maximum Measured Efficiency ........................................................................................................
2 ....................................
b. Conventional Ovens
For the December 2020 NOPD, DOE
maintained its estimates for the
incremental MPCs developed for the
September 2016 SNOPR, but adjusted
the cost-efficiency results to reflect
updates to parts pricing estimates and
the most recent PPI data. 85 FR 80982,
81019. DOE also updated the cost-
$12.41
12.41
efficiency results to reflect the efficiency
levels in that analysis. Id. The estimates
for the incremental MPCs considered in
the December 2020 NOPD are presented
in Table IV.26.
TABLE IV.26—DECEMBER 2020 NOPD CONVENTIONAL OVEN INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION COSTS
[2018$]
Electric ovens
Gas ovens
NOPD level
Standard
Baseline.
1 .......................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................
4 .......................................................................................................................
5 .......................................................................................................................
6 .......................................................................................................................
For this SNOPR, DOE developed the
cost-efficiency results for each
conventional oven product class shown
in Table IV.27 and Table IV.28. DOE
developed incremental MPCs based on
manufacturing cost modeling of units in
$0.81
2.73
7.91
10.31
36.48
68.19
its sample featuring the design options.
DOE notes that the estimated
incremental MPCs are equivalent for the
freestanding and built-in/slide-in oven
product classes and for the standard and
self-clean oven product classes because
Self-clean
Standard
Self-clean
$0.81
26.97
58.68
........................
........................
........................
$0.81
6.00
8.40
28.94
........................
........................
$0.81
21.35
........................
........................
........................
........................
none of the considered design options
would be implemented differently as a
function of installation configuration or
self-clean functionality.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE IV.27—ELECTRIC OVEN INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS
Incremental MPC
(2021$)
Level
Design option
1 ....................................
2 ....................................
3 ....................................
Baseline + SMPS .............................................................................................................................
1 + Forced Convection ....................................................................................................................
2 + Oven Separator .........................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
$2.03
34.11
67.77
6852
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.28—GAS OVEN INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS
Design option
1 ....................................
2 ....................................
Baseline + SMPS .............................................................................................................................
1 + Forced Convection ....................................................................................................................
DOE seeks comment on the
manufacturer production costs for
consumer conventional cooking
products used in this analysis.
4. Manufacturer Selling Price
To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE
applies a multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting
manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) is
the price at which the manufacturer
distributes a unit into commerce. DOE
developed an average manufacturer
markup by examining the annual
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘SEC’’) 10–K reports filed by publicly
traded manufacturers primarily engaged
in appliance manufacturing and whose
combined product range includes
consumer conventional cooking
products. See chapter 12 of the TSD for
this SNOPR for additional detail on the
manufacturer markup.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Incremental MPC
(2021$)
Level
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops
appropriate markups (e.g., retailer
markups, distributor markups,
contractor markups) in the distribution
chain and sales taxes to convert the
MSP estimates derived in the
engineering analysis to consumer prices,
which are then used in the LCC and PBP
analysis. At each step in the distribution
channel, companies mark up the price
of the product to cover business costs
and profit.
For consumer conventional cooking
products, the main parties in the
distribution chain are (1) the
manufacturers of the products; (2) the
retailers purchasing the products from
manufacturers and selling them to
consumers; and (3) the consumers who
purchase the products.
For retailers, DOE developed separate
markups for baseline products (baseline
markups) and for the incremental cost of
more efficient products (incremental
markups). Incremental markups are
coefficients that relate the change in the
MSP of higher-efficiency models to the
change in the retailer sales price.
Baseline markups are applied to the
price of products with baseline
efficiency, while incremental markups
are applied to the difference in price
between baseline and higher-efficiency
models (the incremental cost increase).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
The incremental markup is typically
less than the baseline markup and is
designed to maintain similar per-unit
operating profit before and after new or
amended standards.39 DOE relied on
economic data from the U.S. Census
Bureau to estimate average baseline and
incremental markups.40
Based on microeconomic theory, the
degree to which firms can pass along a
cost increase depends on the level of
market competition, including variables
such as the market structure and
conditions on both the supply and
demand sides (e.g., supply and demand
elasticity). DOE examined industry data
from IBISWorld and determined the
results suggest that the industry groups
involved in appliance retail exhibit a
fair degree of competition even though
three firms occupy approximately 85
percent of the market.41 However DOE
notes that, consumer demand for
household appliances is relatively
inelastic (i.e., demand is not expected to
decrease substantially with an increase
in the price of product). Under
relatively competitive markets with
elastic demand, it may be tenable for
retailers to maintain a fixed markup for
a short period of time after an input
price increase, but the market
competition should eventually force
them to readjust their markups to reach
a medium-term equilibrium in which
per-unit profit is relatively unchanged
before and after standards are
implemented. DOE developed the
incremental markup approach based on
the widely accepted economic view that
firms are not able to sustain a
persistently higher dollar margin in a
competitive market in the medium term.
Under competitive market conditions, if
39 Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the
price of baseline products, using the same retail
markup for the incremental cost and the baseline
cost would result in higher per-unit operating profit
for retailers. While such an outcome is possible,
DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead
to a sustainable increase in profitability for retailers
in the long run.
40 U.S. Census, 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey
(ARTS), Electronics and Appliance Stores sectors.
41 IBISWorld. US Industry Reports (NAICS):
45211—Department Stores; 44311—Consumer
Electronics Stores; 44411—Home Improvement
Stores; 42362 TV & Appliance Retailers in the US.
2022. IBISWorld. (Last accessed February 1, 2022.)
www.ibisworld.com.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$2.17
24.96
the price of the product increases under
standards, the only way to maintain the
same dollar margin as before is for the
markup (and percent gross margin) to
decline.
Chapter 6 of the TSD for this SNOPR
provides details on DOE’s development
of retail markups for consumer
conventional cooking products DOE
requests comment on the markup
analysis described above.
E. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use
analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of consumer
conventional cooking products at
different efficiencies in representative
U.S. single-family homes, multi-family
residences, and to assess the energy
savings potential of increased consumer
conventional cooking product
efficiency. The energy use analysis
estimates the range of energy use of
consumer conventional cooking
products in the field (i.e., as they are
actually used by consumers). The
energy use analysis provides the basis
for other analyses DOE performed,
particularly assessments of the energy
savings and the savings in consumer
operating costs that could result from
adoption of amended or new standards.
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE
used the 2009 California Residential
Appliance Saturation Survey (‘‘RASS’’)
and a Florida Solar Energy Center
(‘‘FSEC’’) study to establish
representative annual energy use values
for conventional cooking tops and
ovens.
DOE established a range of energy use
from data in the EIA’s 2015 Residential
Energy Consumption Survey (‘‘RECS
2015’’).42 RECS 2015 does not provide
the annual energy consumption of
cooking tops, but it does provide the
frequency of cooking top use.43 DOE
42 U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption
Survey: 2015 RECS Survey Data (2019). Available
at: www.eia.gov/consumption/
residential/data/2015/. RECS 2015 is based on a
sample of 5,686 households statistically selected to
represent 118.2 million housing units in the United
States. Available at: www.eia.gov/consumption/
residential/.
43 DOE was unable to use the frequency of use to
calculate the annual energy consumption using a
bottom-up approach, as data in RECS did not
include information about the duration of a cooking
event to allow for an annual energy use calculation.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
was unable to use the frequency of use
to calculate the annual energy
consumption using a bottom-up
approach, as data in RECS 2015 did not
include information about the duration
of a cooking event to allow for an
annual energy use calculation. For the
December 2020 NOPD, DOE relied on
California RASS 2009 and FSEC data to
establish the average annual energy
consumption of a conventional cooking
top and a conventional oven.
From RECS 2015, DOE developed
household samples for each product
class. For each household using a
conventional cooking top and a
conventional oven, RECS provides data
on the frequency of use and number of
meals cooked in the following bins: (1)
less than once per week, (2) once per
week, (3) a few times per week, (4) once
per day, (5) two times per day, and (6)
three or more times per day. DOE
utilized the frequency of use to define
the variability of the annual energy
consumption. First, DOE assumed that
the weighted-average cooking frequency
from RECS represents the average
energy use values based on the
California RASS and FSEC data. DOE
then varied the annual energy
consumption across the RECS
households based on their reported
cooking frequency relative to the
weighted-average cooking frequency.
AHAM stated that consumer cooking
behavior is still the most significant
factor in the energy use of consumer
conventional cooking products. (AHAM,
No. 84 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs commented that the
COVID–19 pandemic has fundamentally
altered cooking behavior in households
across the country. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at
p. 3) The CA IOUs cited a December
2020 survey of more than 1,000
demographically and geographically
representative participants conducted
by HUNTER,44 in which over 54 percent
of responders reported that they cooked
more at home compared to before the
pandemic, with 51–71 percent of
responders intending to continue
cooking at home, even after the
pandemic is over. (Id.) The CA IOUs
also cited a survey by International
Food Information Council,45 in which
nearly 60 percent of responders stated
they are cooking at home more as a
result of the pandemic, and a separate
44 HUNTER: FOOD STUDY 2020 SPECIAL
REPORT (America Gets Cooking: The Impact of
COVID–19 on Americans’ Food Habits), published
in December 2020. Available at www.hunterpr.com/
foodstudy_coronavirus/.
45 International Food Information Council. 2020
Food & Health Survey. 10 June 2020. Available at
www.foodinsight.org/2020-food-and-health-survey/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PG&E survey 46 in which 28 percent of
responders claiming that cooking had
been the most likely factor which
contributed to increased energy use in
their home during the pandemic. (Id.)
The CA IOUs added that DOE’s use of
the 2015 RECS to estimate operating
hours for cooking tops does not account
for these changing use trends. (Id.)
DOE agrees that cooking behavior is a
significant factor for determining the
energy use of consumer conventional
cooking products. Although, the
pandemic has likely introduced changes
to consumers lifestyle, there is
insufficient data at this time to establish
a definite trend originating from the
pandemic. If appropriate data from the
2020 RECS are available for the final
rule analysis, DOE will evaluate the
extent to which the data may have been
affected by changes in cooking usage
due to the pandemic. DOE notes that an
increase in consumer cooking product
usage would translate into increased
energy savings and monetized benefits
relative to the reference estimates
presented in this SNOPR.
DOE requests comment on data and
information on how the pandemic has
changed consumer cooking behavior
and product usage.
For this SNOPR, DOE updated the
datasets used to establish average
annual energy consumption values for
cooking tops and ovens. DOE utilized
the 2019 California RASS 47 and 2021
field-metered data from the Pecan Street
Project 48 to estimate representative
annual energy use values for
conventional cooking tops and ovens.
Pecan Street measures circuit-level
electricity use at 1-minute resolution
from volunteer households across
multiple states. From the Pecan Street
data, DOE performed an analysis of 39
households in Texas and 28 households
in New York to derive develop average
annual energy consumption values for
each State. In the absence of similar
field-metered data for other States, DOE
weighted the average annual energy use
results from California (from CA RASS
2019), Texas, and New York by the
number of households in each State to
estimate an average National energy use
value more representative than any
individual State measurement. DOE
calculated a household-weighted
National value using the average values
from Texas, New York, and California
and estimates for the number of
households in each State from the U.S.
46 PG&E administered survey results, November
18, 2020.
47 California Energy Commission, Residential
Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) (2019).
48 Pecan Street Dataset. www.pecanstreet.org/
category/dataport/ (last accessed June 28, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6853
Census.49 DOE retained the
methodology used in the NOPD to
establish a range in energy use values
using RECS 2015.
Chapter 7 of the TSD for this SNOPR
provides details on DOE’s energy use
analysis for consumer conventional
cooking products.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP
analyses to evaluate the economic
impacts on individual consumers of
potential energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional cooking
products. The effect of new or amended
energy conservation standards on
individual consumers usually involves a
reduction in operating cost and an
increase in purchase cost. DOE used the
following two metrics to measure
consumer impacts:
• The LCC is the total consumer
expense of an appliance or product over
the life of that product, consisting of
total installed cost (manufacturer selling
price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus
operating costs (expenses for energy use,
maintenance, and repair). To compute
the operating costs, DOE discounts
future operating costs to the time of
purchase and sums them over the
lifetime of the product.
• The PBP is the estimated amount of
time (in years) it takes consumers to
recover the increased purchase cost
(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change
in annual operating cost for the year that
amended or new standards are assumed
to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE
measures the change in LCC relative to
the LCC in the no-new-standards case,
which reflects the estimated efficiency
distribution of consumer conventional
cooking products in the absence of new
or amended energy conservation
standards. In contrast, the PBP for a
given efficiency level is measured
relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level
in each product class, DOE calculated
the LCC and PBP for a nationally
representative set of housing units. As
stated previously, DOE developed
household samples from the 2015 RECS.
For each sample household, DOE
determined the energy consumption for
the consumer conventional cooking
49 U.S. Census. data.census.gov/cedsci/
table?q=households%20by%20state&
tid=ACSDT5Y2020.B10063.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6854
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
products and the appropriate energy
price. By developing a representative
sample of households, the analysis
captured the variability in energy
consumption and energy prices
associated with the use of consumer
conventional cooking products.
Inputs to the calculation of total
installed cost include the cost of the
product—which includes MPCs,
manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor markups, and sales taxes—
and installation costs. Inputs to the
calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption,
energy prices and price projections,
repair and maintenance costs, product
lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE
created distributions of values for
product lifetime, discount rates, and
sales taxes, with probabilities attached
to each value, to account for their
uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to
calculate the LCC relies on a Monte
Carlo simulation to incorporate
uncertainty and variability into the
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations
randomly sample input values from the
probability distributions and consumer
conventional cooking product user
samples. For this rulemaking, the Monte
Carlo approach is implemented in MS
Excel together with the Crystal BallTM
add-on.50 The model calculated the LCC
for products at each efficiency level for
10,000 housing units per simulation
run. The analytical results include a
distribution of 10,000 data points
showing the range of LCC savings for a
given efficiency level relative to the nonew-standards case efficiency
distribution. In performing an iteration
of the Monte Carlo simulation for a
given consumer, product efficiency is
chosen based on its probability. If the
chosen product efficiency is greater than
or equal to the efficiency of the standard
level under consideration, the LCC
calculation reveals that a consumer is
not impacted by the standard level. By
accounting for consumers who already
purchase more-efficient products, DOE
avoids overstating the potential benefits
from increasing product efficiency.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for
consumers of conventional cooking
products as if each were to purchase a
new product in the expected year of
required compliance with new or
amended standards. New and amended
standards would apply to consumer
conventional cooking products
manufactured 3 years after the date on
which any new or amended standard is
published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i))
At this time, DOE estimates publication
of a final rule in 2023. Therefore, for
purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2027
as the first year of compliance with any
amended standards for consumer
conventional cooking products.
Table IV.29 summarizes the approach
and data DOE used to derive inputs to
the LCC and PBP calculations. The
paragraphs that follow provide further
discussion. Details of the spreadsheet
model, and of all the inputs to the LCC
and PBP analyses, are contained in
chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR
and its appendices.
TABLE IV.29—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *
Inputs
Source/method
Product Cost ........................
Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used historical
data to derive a price scaling index to project product costs.
Baseline installation cost determined with data from RS Means. Assumed no change with efficiency level.
The total annual energy use multiplied by the hours per year. Average number of hours based on field data.
Variability: Based on the 2015 RECS.
Electricity: Based on Edison Electric Institute data for 2021.
Natural Gas: Based on EIA’s Natural Gas Navigator for 2020.
Variability: Regional energy prices by Census Division.
Based on AEO2022 price projections.
Assumed no change with efficiency level.
Installation Costs ..................
Annual Energy Use ..............
Energy Prices .......................
Energy Price Trends ............
Repair and Maintenance
Costs.
Product Lifetime ...................
Discount Rates .....................
Compliance Date ..................
Average: 16.8 years for electric units and 14.5 years for gas units.
Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered
appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of
Consumer Finances.
2027.
* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in
chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
50 Crystal BallTM is commercially available
software tool to facilitate the creation of these types
of models by generating probability distributions
and summarizing results within Excel, available at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
To project future product prices, DOE
examined the electric and gas cooking
products Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’).
These indices, adjusted for inflation,
show a declining trend. DOE performed
a power-law fit of historical PPI data
and cumulative shipments. For the
electric cooking products price trend,
DOE used the ‘‘Electric household
ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and
equipment’’ PPI for 1967–2021.51 For
the gas cooking product price trend,
DOE used the ‘‘Gas household ranges,
ovens, surface cooking units and
equipment’’ for 1981–2021.52 See
chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR
www.oracle.com/middleware/technologies/
crystalball.html (last accessed June 28, 2022).
51 Electric household ranges, ovens, surface
cooking units and equipment PPI series ID:
PCU33522033522011; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
52 Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking
units, and equipment PPI series ID;
PCU33522033522013; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor,
overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the
product. DOE used data from the 2021
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
RS Means Mechanical Cost Data 53 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. In the case of
electric smooth element cooking tops,
the induction heating at EL 3 requires a
change of cookware to those that are
ferromagnetic to operate the cooking
tops in addition to an upgrade to
existing electrical wiring to
accommodate for a higher amperage.
DOE treated this as additional
installation cost for this particular
design option. DOE used average
number of pots and pans utilized by a
representative household to estimate
this portion of the installation cost. See
chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR for
details about this component.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled household, DOE
determined the energy consumption for
a consumer conventional cooking
product at different efficiency levels
using the approach described previously
in section IV.E of this document.
4. Energy and Gas Prices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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-newstandards case, and marginal electricity
prices for the incremental change in
energy use associated with the other
efficiency levels considered.
DOE derived electricity prices in 2021
using data from the Edison Electric
Institute (‘‘EEI’’) Typical Bills and
Average Rates reports. Based upon
comprehensive, industry-wide surveys,
this semi-annual report presents typical
monthly electric bills and average
kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as
charged by investor-owned utilities. For
the residential sector, DOE calculated
electricity prices using the methodology
described in Coughlin and Beraki
(2018).54 For the commercial sector,
DOE calculated electricity prices using
53 RS Means Company Inc., RS Means Mechanical
Cost Data (2021). Available at https://rsmeans.com
(last accessed on June 23, 2022).
54 Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and
Estimation Methods. Lawrence Berkeley National
Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL–2001169.
ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricityprices-review.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
the methodology described in Coughlin
and Beraki (2019).55
DOE obtained data for calculating
regional prices of natural gas from the
EIA publication, Natural Gas
Navigator.56 This publication presents
monthly volumes of natural gas
deliveries and average prices by state for
residential, commercial, and industrial
customers.
DOE’s methodology allows electricity
prices to vary by sector, region and
season. In the analysis, variability in
electricity prices is chosen to be
consistent with the way the consumer
economic and energy use characteristics
are defined in the LCC analysis. For
consumer conventional cooking
products, DOE calculated weightedaverage values for average and marginal
electricity and gas price for the nine
census divisions. See chapter 8 of the
TSD for this SNOPR for details.
To estimate energy prices in future
years, DOE multiplied the 2021 energy
prices by the projection of annual
average price changes for each of the
nine census divisions from the
Reference case in AEO2022, which has
an end year of 2050.57 To estimate price
trends after 2050, DOE used constant
value calculated from a simple average
of the price trend between 2046 through
2050.
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with
repairing or replacing product
components that have failed in an
appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the
operation of the product. Typically,
small incremental increases in product
efficiency produce no, or only minor,
changes in repair and maintenance costs
compared to baseline efficiency
products.
For gas ovens, DOE determined the
repair and maintenance costs associated
with glo-bar ignition systems. DOE
estimated the average repair cost
attributable to glo-bar systems and
annualized it over the life of the unit at
$22.58 based on an analysis of available
online data found on appliance repair
costs.
55 Coughlin,
K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Nonresidential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data
Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No.
LBNL–2001203. ees.lbl.gov/publications/nonresidential-electricity-prices.
56 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy
Information Administration. Natural Gas Navigator
2020. Available at www.eia.gov/naturalgas/
data.php (last accessed November 14, 2021).
57 EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with
Projections to 2050. Washington, DC. Available at
www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ (last accessed June 28,
2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6855
DOE seeks feedback and comment on
its estimate for repair costs for consumer
conventional cooking products.
6. Product Lifetime
Equipment lifetime is the age at
which the equipment is retired from
service. DOE used a variety of sources
to establish low, average, and high
estimates for product lifetime.
Additionally, DOE used AHAM’s input
to the December 2020 NOPD on the
average useful life by product
categories, such as electric range, gas
range, wall oven, and electric cooking
top. Utilizing this detail and the market
shares of these product categories, DOE
refined the average lifetime estimates to
a more representative 16.8 years for all
electric cooking products and 14.5 years
for all gas cooking products. DOE
characterized the product lifetimes with
Weibull probability distributions.
DOE requests comment and
additional data on its estimates for the
lifetime distribution.
See chapter 8 of the TSD for this
SNOPR for further details on the sources
used to develop product lifetimes, as
well as the use of Weibull distributions.
7. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE
applies discount rates appropriate to
households to estimate the present
value of future operating cost savings.
DOE estimated a distribution of
discount rates for consumer
conventional cooking products based on
the opportunity cost of consumer funds.
DOE applies weighted average
discount rates calculated from consumer
debt and asset data, rather than marginal
or implicit discount rates.58 The LCC
analysis estimates net present value
over the lifetime of the product, so the
appropriate discount rate will reflect the
general opportunity cost of household
funds, taking this time scale into
account. Given the long-time horizon
modeled in the LCC analysis, the
application of a marginal interest rate
associated with an initial source of
funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the
method of purchase, consumers are
expected to continue to rebalance their
58 The implicit discount rate is inferred from a
consumer purchase decision between two otherwise
identical goods with different first cost and
operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the
increment of first cost to the difference in net
present value of lifetime operating cost,
incorporating the influence of several factors:
transaction costs; risk premiums and response to
uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at
which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. The
implicit discount rate is not appropriate for the LCC
analysis because it reflects a range of factors that
influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than
the opportunity cost of the funds that are used in
purchases.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6856
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
To establish residential discount rates
for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all
relevant household debt or asset classes
in order to approximate a consumer’s
opportunity cost of funds related to
appliance energy cost savings. It
estimated the average percentage shares
of the various types of debt and equity
by household income group using data
from the Federal Reserve Board’s
triennial Survey of Consumer
Finances 59 (‘‘SCF’’) starting in 1995 and
ending in 2019. Using the SCF and other
sources, DOE developed a distribution
of rates for each type of debt and asset
by income group to represent the rates
that may apply in the year in which
amended standards would take effect.
DOE assigned each sample household a
specific discount rate drawn from one of
the distributions. The average rate
across all types of household debt and
equity and income groups, weighted by
the shares of each type, is 4.3 percent.
See chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR
for further details on the development of
consumer discount rates.
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the
No-New-Standards Case
To accurately estimate the share of
consumers that would be affected by a
potential energy conservation standard
at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s
LCC analysis considered the projected
distribution (market shares) of product
efficiencies under the no-new-standards
case (i.e., the case without amended or
new energy conservation standards) in
the compliance year (2027).
For cooking tops, DOE estimated the
current efficiency distribution for each
product class from the sample of
cooking tops used to develop the
engineering analysis. For ovens, DOE
relied on model counts of the current
market distribution. Given the lack of
data on historic efficiency trends, DOE
assumed that the estimated current
distributions would apply in 2027.
While DOE acknowledges that
economic factors may play a role when
consumers decide on what type of
conventional cooking product to install,
assignment of conventional cooking
59 U.S.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998,
2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. (Last
accessed June 28, 2022.) www.federalreserve.gov/
econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
product efficiency for a given
installation, based solely on economic
measures such as life-cycle cost or
simple payback period most likely
would not fully and accurately reflect
actual real-world installations. There are
a number of market failures discussed in
the economics literature that illustrate
how purchasing decisions with respect
to energy efficiency are unlikely to be
perfectly correlated with energy use, as
described below. DOE maintains that
the method of assignment, which is in
part random, is a reasonable approach,
one that simulates behavior in the
conventional cooking product market,
where market failures result in
purchasing decisions not being perfectly
aligned with economic interests, more
realistically than relying only on
apparent cost-effectiveness criteria
derived from the limited information in
RECS. DOE further emphasizes that its
approach does not assume that all
purchasers of conventional cooking
product make economically irrational
decisions (i.e., the lack of a correlation
is not the same as a negative
correlation). As part of the random
assignment, some homes or buildings
with more frequent cooking events will
be assigned higher efficiency
conventional cooking products, and
some homes or buildings with
particularly lower cooking events will
be assigned baseline units. By using this
approach, DOE acknowledges the
uncertainty inherent in the data and
minimizes any bias in the analysis by
using random assignment, as opposed to
assuming certain market conditions that
are unsupported given the available
evidence.
First, consumers are motivated by
more than simple financial trade-offs.
There are consumers who are willing to
pay a premium for more energy-efficient
products because they are
environmentally conscious.60 There are
also several behavioral factors that can
influence the purchasing decisions of
complicated multi-attribute products,
such as conventional cooking products.
For example, consumers (or decision
makers in an organization) are highly
influenced by choice architecture,
defined as the framing of the decision,
the surrounding circumstances of the
purchase, the alternatives available, and
how they’re presented for any given
60 Ward, D.O., Clark, C.D., Jensen, K.L., Yen, S.T.,
& Russell, C.S. (2011): ‘‘Factors influencing
willingness-to pay for the ENERGY STAR® label,’’
Energy Policy, 39(3), 1450–1458. (Available at:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S0301421510009171) (Last accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
choice scenario.61 The same consumer
or decision maker may make different
choices depending on the characteristics
of the decision context (e.g., the timing
of the purchase), which have nothing to
do with the characteristics of the
alternatives themselves or their prices.
Consumers or decision makers also face
a variety of other behavioral phenomena
including loss aversion, sensitivity to
information salience, and other forms of
bounded rationality.62
The first of these market failures—the
split-incentive or principal-agent
problem—is likely to affect
conventional cooking products more
than many other types of appliances.
The principal-agent problem is a market
failure that results when the consumer
that purchases the equipment does not
internalize all of the costs associated
with operating the equipment. Instead,
the user of the product, who has no
control over the purchase decision, pays
the operating costs. There is a high
likelihood of split incentive problems in
the case of rental properties where the
landlord makes the choice of what
conventional cooking product to install,
whereas the renter is responsible for
paying energy bills.
Attari et al.63 show that consumers
tend to underestimate the energy use of
large energy-intensive appliances, but
overestimate the energy use of small
appliances. This may affect how
consumers evaluate and purchase
available products on the market.
Therefore, it is likely that consumers
systematically underestimate the energy
use associated with conventional
cooking products, resulting in less costeffective purchases.
These market failures affect a sizeable
share of the consumer population. A
study by Houde 64 indicates that there is
a non-negligible subset of consumers
61 Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., and Balz, J.P.
(2014). ‘‘Choice Architecture’’ in The Behavioral
Foundations of Public Policy, Eldar Shafir (ed).
62 Thaler, R.H., and Bernartzi, S. (2004). ‘‘Save
More Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics in
Increase Employee Savings,’’ Journal of Political
Economy 112(1), S164–S187. See also Klemick, H.,
et al. (2015) ‘‘Heavy-Duty Trucking and the Energy
Efficiency Paradox: Evidence from Focus Groups
and Interviews,’’ Transportation Research Part A:
Policy & Practice, 77, 154–166. (providing evidence
that loss aversion and other market failures can
affect otherwise profit-maximizing firms).
63 Attari, S.Z., M.L. DeKay, C.I. Davidson, and W.
Bruine de Bruin (2010): ‘‘Public perceptions of
energy consumption and savings.’’ Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 107(37), 16054–
16059 (Available at: www.pnas.org/content/107/37/
16054) (Last accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
64 Houde, S. (2018): ‘‘How Consumers Respond to
Environmental Certification and the Value of
Energy Information,’’ The RAND Journal of
Economics, 49 (2), 453–477 (Available at:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1756–
2171.12231) (Last accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6857
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
The estimated market shares for the
no-new-standards case for consumer
conventional cooking products in 2027
are shown in Table IV.30 through Table
IV.32. See chapter 8 of the TSD for this
that appear to purchase appliances
without taking into account their energy
efficiency and operating costs at all.
DOE requests comment and feedback
on its efficiency assignment in the LCC
analysis.
SNOPR for further information on the
derivation of the efficiency
distributions.
TABLE IV.30—COOKING TOP MARKET SHARES FOR THE NO-NEW STANDARDS CASE
Electric open (coil) element cooking tops
Electric smooth element cooking tops
Standard level
IAEC
(kWh/year)
Market
share
(%)
Standard level
Baseline .........
199
......................
......................
......................
100
......................
......................
......................
Baseline ........
1 ....................
2 ....................
3 ....................
IAEC
(kWh/year)
250
207
189
179
Gas cooking tops
Market
share
(%)
20
50
25
5
Standard
level
IAEC
(kBtu/year)
Market
share
(%)
Baseline ........
1 ....................
2 ....................
.......................
1,775
1,440
1,204
......................
48
48
4
......................
TABLE IV.31—CONVENTIONAL ELECTRIC OVEN PRODUCT MARKET SHARES FOR THE NO-NEW STANDARDS CASE
Standard ovens
Freestanding
Self-clean ovens
Built-in/slide-in
Freestanding
Built-in/slide-in
Efficiency level
Market
share
(%)
IEAO
(kWh/year)
Baseline ...........
1 .......................
2 .......................
3 .......................
314.7
302.0
289.0
235.3
Market
share
(%)
IEAO
(kWh/year)
5
57
38
0
321.2
308.9
295.9
242.1
IEAO
(kWh/year)
5
65
30
0
Market
share
(%)
354.4
341.7
328.7
275.0
IEAO
(kWh/year)
5
18
77
0
Market
share
(%)
360.5
348.1
335.1
281.4
5
7
86
2
TABLE IV.32—CONVENTIONAL GAS OVEN PRODUCT MARKET SHARES FOR THE NO-NEW STANDARDS CASE
Standard ovens
Freestanding
Self-clean ovens
Built-in/slide-in
Freestanding
Built-in/slide-in
Efficiency level
Market
share
(%)
IEAO
(kBtu/year)
Baseline ...........
1 .......................
2 .......................
2,085
2,041
1,908
4
34
62
DOE seeks comment and feedback on
its estimate for the no-new-standards
case efficiency distribution.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
Market
share
(%)
IEAO
(kBtu/year)
2,104
2,062
1,929
IEAO
(kBtu/year)
4
58
38
1,958
1,915
1,781
changes over time in operating cost
savings. The PBP calculation uses the
same inputs as the LCC analysis when
deriving first-year operating costs.
As noted previously, EPCA
establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified
if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a
product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less
than three times the value of the first
year’s energy savings resulting from the
standard, as calculated under the
applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered
efficiency level, DOE determined the
value of the first year’s energy savings
by calculating the energy savings in
accordance with the applicable DOE test
procedure, and multiplying those
savings by the average energy price
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Market
share
(%)
IEAO
(kBtu/year)
4
3
93
1,979
1,937
1,804
Market
share
(%)
4
19
77
projection for the year in which
compliance with the new and amended
standards would be required.
G. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual
product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended
or new energy conservation standards
on energy use, NPV, and future
manufacturer cash flows.65 The
shipments model takes an accounting
approach, tracking market shares of
each product class and the vintage of
units in the stock. Stock accounting uses
product shipments as inputs to estimate
the age distribution of in-service
product stocks for all years. The age
65 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as
a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales
are lacking. In general, one would expect a close
correspondence between shipments and sales.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
6858
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
distribution of in-service product stocks
is a key input to calculations of both the
NES and NPV, because operating costs
for any year depend on the age
distribution of the stock. The shipment
projections are based on historical data
and an analysis of key market drivers for
each product. For consumer
conventional cooking products, DOE
accounted for three market segments: (1)
new construction, (2) existing homes
(i.e., replacing failed products), and (3)
retired but not replaced products.
To determine new construction
shipments, DOE used a forecast of new
housing coupled with product market
saturation data for new housing. For
new housing completions and mobile
home placements, DOE adopted the
projections from EIA’s AEO2022
through 2050. For subsequent years,
DOE set the annual new housing
completions fixed to the 2050 value.
The market saturation data for new
housing was derived from RECS 2015.
DOE estimated replacements using
product retirement functions developed
from product lifetimes. DOE used
retirement functions based on Weibull
distributions. To reconcile the historical
shipments with modeled shipments,
DOE assumed that every retired unit is
not replaced. DOE attributed the reason
for this non-replacement to building
demolition occurring over the period
2027–2056. The not-replaced rate is
distributed across electric and gas
cooking products.
DOE allocated shipments to each
product class based on the current
market share of the class. DOE
developed the market shares based on
data collected from Appliance Magazine
Market Research report 66 and U.S.
Appliance Industry Statistical Review.67
The product class market shares are
kept constant over time.
As in the December 2020 NOPD, DOE
did not estimate any fuel switching
between electric and gas cooking
products, as no significant switching
was observed from historical data
between 2003 to 2020. However, DOE is
aware of recent state and local policies
promoting the decarbonization of
residential buildings which may impact
estimates for the distribution of
shipments between electric and gas
cooking products in the no-newstandards case. Additionally, the
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) allocates
$4.5 billion in rebates to cover the costs
of high-efficiency electric home
upgrades, including rebates targeting
electric conventional cooking products.
DOE understands that these rebates may
cause the shipments of electric
conventional cooking products to
increase and gas conventional cooking
products to decline in the no-newstandards case, thus impacting
economic estimates in standards
cases.68 Ideally, incorporating the
impacts of these policies would require
data on the consumer response rebates
covering conventional cooking products
offered through local policies and the IR
A rebates. The implementation and
consumer response to these policies is
still nascent and has not yet shown an
impact on available shipments data.
However, other forecasts and data may
prove useful in informing an analysis
that recognizes the likely sizeable
impact the IRA will have in
incentivizing GHG reducing fuelswitching choices among cooking
product consumers, independent of the
standards proposed in this action. DOE
will continue to explore possible
avenues for such analysis in
anticipation of the final rule. If DOE
receives or discovers through further
exploration, information and data
(including its own cooking specific
modeling as program designs are
established under the IRA), DOE may
consider a sensitivity scenario or other
analytic approach based on comments
received on IRA and other policies
promoting electrification.
DOE seeks comment on the
distribution between electric and gas
cooking products over the shipments
analysis period and the potential for
fuel switching between electric and gas
cooking products. Specifically, DOE
requests data on existing policy
incentives for consumers to switch fuels
and data that indicates the number of
consumers switching fuel types between
electric and gas cooking products.
DOE considered the impact of
standards on product shipments. DOE
concluded that it is unlikely that the
price increase due to the proposed
standards would impact the decision to
install a cooking product in the new
construction market. In the replacement
market, DOE assumed that, in response
to an increased product price, some
consumers will choose to repair their
old cooking product and extend its
lifetime instead of replacing it
immediately. DOE estimated the
magnitude of such impact through a
purchase price elasticity of demand.
66 Appliance Magazine Market Research. The U.S.
Appliance Industry: Market Value, Life Expectancy
& Replacement Picture 2012.
67 U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review:
2000 to YTD 2011.
68 U. S. Department of Energy Press Release
Pertaining to the Inflation Reduction Act’s Direct
Consumer Rebates. See https://www.energy.gov/
articles/biden-harris-administration-announcesstate-and-tribe-allocations-home-energy-rebate.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The estimated price elasticity of ¥0.367
is based on data for cooking products as
described in appendix 9A of the TSD for
this SNOPR. This elasticity relates the
repair or replace decision to the
incremental installed cost of higher
efficiency cooking products. DOE
estimated that the average extension of
life of the repaired unit would be 5
years, and then that unit will be
replaced with a new cooking unit.
The second-hand market for used
appliances is a potential alternative to
consumers purchasing a new unit or
repairing a broken unit. An increase in
the purchases of older, less-efficient
second-hand units due to a price
increase due to a standard could
potentially decrease projected energy
savings. DOE assumed that purchases
on the second-hand market would not
change significantly due to a standard
and did not include their impact on
product shipments.
DOE requests data on the market size
and typical selling price of units sold
through the second-hand market for
cooking products.
For further details on the shipments
analysis, please refer to chapter 9 of the
TSD for this SNOPR.
DOE welcomes input on the effect of
new and amended standards on impacts
across products within the same fuel
class and equipment type.
DOE seeks comment on the general
approach to its shipments methodology.
H. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the national energy
savings (i.e., NES) and the NPV from a
national perspective of total consumer
costs and savings that would be
expected to result from new or amended
standards at specific efficiency levels.69
(‘‘Consumer’’ in this context refers to
consumers of the product being
regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and
NPV for the potential standard levels
considered based on projections of
annual product shipments, along with
the annual energy consumption and
total installed cost data from the energy
use and LCC analyses. For the present
analysis, DOE projected the energy
savings, operating cost savings, product
costs, and NPV of consumer benefits
over the lifetime of consumer
conventional cooking products sold
from 2027 through 2056.
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or
amended standards by comparing a case
without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards
case characterizes energy use and
consumer costs for each product class in
69 The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states
and U.S. territories.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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
6859
spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet
model uses typical values (as opposed
to probability distributions) as inputs.
Table IV.33 summarizes the inputs
and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the SNOPR. Discussion of
these inputs and methods follows the
table. See chapter 10 of the TSD for this
SNOPR for further details.
standards cases) for that class. For the
standards cases, DOE considers how a
given standard would likely affect the
market shares of products with
efficiencies greater than the standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to
calculate the energy savings and the
national consumer costs and savings
from each TSL. Interested parties can
review DOE’s analyses by changing
various input quantities within the
TABLE IV.33—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Inputs
Method
Shipments ...........................................................
Compliance Date of Standard ............................
Efficiency Trends ................................................
Annual shipments from shipments model.
2027.
No-new-standards case: No efficiency trend.
Standards cases: No efficiency trend.
Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy use at each TSL.
Annual weighted-average values are a function of cost at each TSL.
Incorporates projection of future product prices based on historical data.
Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy consumption per unit and
energy prices.
Annual values do not change with efficiency level.
AEO2022 projections (to 2050) and constant value based on average between 2046–2050
thereafter.
A time-series conversion factor based on AEO2022.
3 percent and 7 percent.
2022.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ................
Total Installed Cost per Unit ...............................
Annual Energy Cost per Unit ..............................
Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit ..............
Energy Price Trends ...........................................
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC Conversion .....
Discount Rate .....................................................
Present Year .......................................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Product Efficiency Trends
A key component of the NIA is the
trend in energy efficiency projected for
the no-new-standards case and each of
the standards cases. Section IV.F.8 of
this document describes how DOE
developed an energy efficiency
distribution for the no-new-standards
case (which yields a shipment-weighted
average efficiency) for each of the
considered product classes for the year
of anticipated compliance with an
amended or new standard. DOE
assumed a static efficiency distribution
over the shipments analysis period.
For the standards cases, DOE used a
‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the
shipment-weighted efficiency for the
year that standards are assumed to
become effective (2027). In this
scenario, the market shares of products
in the no-new-standards case that do not
meet the standard under consideration
would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new
standard level, and the market share of
products above the standard would
remain unchanged.
2. National Energy Savings
The national energy savings analysis
involves a comparison of national
energy consumption of the considered
products between each trial standards
case (or TSL) and the case with no new
or amended energy conservation
standards. DOE calculated the national
energy consumption by multiplying the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
number of units (stock) of each product
(by vintage or age) by the unit energy
consumption (also by vintage). DOE
calculated annual NES based on the
difference in national energy
consumption for the no-new standards
case and for each higher efficiency
standard case. DOE estimated energy
consumption and savings based on site
energy and converted the electricity
consumption and savings to primary
energy (i.e., the energy consumed by
power plants to generate site electricity)
using annual conversion factors derived
from AEO2022. Cumulative energy
savings are the sum of the NES for each
year over the timeframe of the analysis.
Use of higher-efficiency products is
sometimes associated with a direct
rebound effect, which refers to an
increase in utilization of the product
due to the increase in efficiency. DOE
did not find any data on the rebound
effect specific to consumer conventional
cooking products.
DOE seeks feedback on its assumption
of no rebound effect associated with the
use of more efficient conventional
cooking products as a result of a
standard.
In 2011, in response to the
recommendations of a committee on
‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle
Measurement Approaches to Energy
Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the
National Academy of Sciences, DOE
announced its intention to use FFC
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
measures of energy use and greenhouse
gas and other emissions in the national
impact analyses and emissions analyses
included in future energy conservation
standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281
(Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the
approaches discussed in the August 18,
2011 notice, DOE published a statement
of amended policy in which DOE
explained its determination that EIA’s
National Energy Modeling System
(‘‘NEMS’’) is the most appropriate tool
for its FFC analysis and its intention to
use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701
(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public
domain, multi-sector, partial
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy
sector 70 that EIA uses to prepare its
Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors
incorporate losses in production and
delivery in the case of natural gas
(including fugitive emissions) and
additional energy used to produce and
deliver the various fuels used by power
plants. The approach used for deriving
FFC measures of energy use and
emissions is described in appendix 10B
of the TSD for this SNOPR.
EEI commented that values for fullfuel-cycle energy estimates for
electricity are extremely overstated,
70 For more information on NEMS, refer to The
National Energy Modeling System: An Overview
2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/
documentation/archive/pdf/0581(2009).pdf (last
accessed July 11, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6860
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
especially for consumers in states with
renewable portfolio standards. (EEI, No.
83 at pp. 61–62) EEI added that the
values in the December 2020 NOPD use
outdated information, are more accurate
of a national average, and are not very
representative of what many consumers
are going to see. (Id.) EEI also noted that
other standards are increasingly using
regional values. (Id.)
As previously mentioned, DOE
converts electricity consumption and
savings to primary energy using annual
conversion factors derived from the
AEO. Traditionally, EIA has used the
fossil fuel equivalency approach to
report noncombustible renewables’
contribution to total primary energy, in
part because the resulting shares of
primary energy are closer to the shares
of generated electricity.71 The fossil fuel
equivalency approach applies an
annualized weighted-average heat rate
for fossil fuel power plants to the
electricity generated (in kWh) from
noncombustible renewables. EIA
recognizes that using captured energy
(the net energy available for direct
consumption after transformation of a
noncombustible renewable energy into
electricity) or incident energy (the
mechanical, radiation, or thermal energy
that is measurable as the ‘‘input’’ to the
device) are possible approaches for
converting renewable electricity to a
common measure of primary energy,72
but it continues to use the fossil fuel
equivalency approach in the AEO and
other reporting of energy statistics. DOE
contends that it is important for it to
maintain consistency with EIA in DOE’s
accounting of primary energy savings
from energy efficiency standards.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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-newstandards case and each standards case
in terms of total savings in operating
71 Without adjusting primary energy for fossil fuel
equivalence, the noncombustible renewable share
of total energy consumption for utility-scale
electricity generation in 2018 would have bene 6
percent instead of the 15-percent share under the
fossil fuel equivalency approach. On a physical
units basis, net generation from noncombustible
renewable energy sources was 16 percent of total
utility-scale net generation in the same year.
www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41013
(last accessed June 28, 2022).
72 See: www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/
pdf/sec12_28.pdf (last accessed June 28, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
costs versus total increases in installed
costs. DOE calculates operating cost
savings over the lifetime of each product
shipped during the projection period.
As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this
document, DOE developed separate
product price trends for electric and gas
cooking products based on a power-law
fit of historical PPI data and cumulative
shipments. For the electric cooking
products price trend, DOE used the
‘‘Electric household ranges, ovens,
surface cooking units and equipment’’
PPI for 1967–2021.73 For the gas cooking
product price trend, DOE used the ‘‘Gas
household ranges, ovens, surface
cooking units and equipment’’ for 1981–
2021.74 DOE applied the same trends to
project prices for each product class at
each considered efficiency level. By
2056, which is the end date of the
projection period, the average product
price is projected to drop 17 percent
relative to 2027 for electric cooking
products, and 25 percent for gas cooking
products. DOE’s projection of product
prices is described in chapter 8 of the
TSD for this SNOPR.
To evaluate the effect of uncertainty
regarding the price trend estimates, DOE
investigated the impact of different
product price projections on the
consumer NPV for the considered TSLs
for consumer conventional cooking
products. In addition to the default
price trend, DOE considered two
product price sensitivity cases: (1) a
high price decline case based on a
learning rate derived from subset of PPI
data for the period 1993–2021 for
electric cooking products and the period
1981–2001 for gas cooking products (2)
a low price decline case based on a
learning rate derived from a subset of
PPI data from the period of 1967–1992
for electric cooking products and the
period 2002–2021 for gas cooking
products. The derivation of these price
trends and the results of these
sensitivity cases are described in
appendix 10C of the TSD for this
SNOPR.
The energy cost savings are calculated
using the estimated energy savings in
each year and the projected price of the
appropriate form of energy. To estimate
energy prices in future years, DOE
multiplied the average regional energy
prices by the projection of annual
national-average residential energy price
changes in the Reference case from
AEO2022, which has an end year of
2050. To estimate price trends after
73 Electric household ranges, ovens, surface
cooking units and equipment PPI series ID:
PCU33522033522011; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
74 Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking
units, and equipment PPI series ID;
PCU33522033522013; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2050, DOE used a constant value
derived from the average value between
2046 through 2050. As part of the NIA,
DOE also analyzed scenarios that used
inputs from variants of the AEO2022
Reference case that have lower and
higher economic growth. Those cases
have lower and higher energy price
trends compared to the Reference case.
NIA results based on these cases are
presented in appendix 10C of the TSD
for this SNOPR.
In calculating the NPV, DOE
multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine
their present value. For this SNOPR,
DOE estimated the NPV of consumer
benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7percent real discount rate. DOE uses
these discount rates in accordance with
guidance provided by the OMB to
Federal agencies on the development of
regulatory analysis.75 The discount rates
for the determination of NPV are in
contrast to the discount rates used in the
LCC analysis, which are designed to
reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7percent 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.
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In analyzing the potential impact of
new or amended energy conservation
standards on consumers, DOE evaluates
the impact on identifiable subgroups of
consumers that may be
disproportionately affected by a new or
amended national standard. The
purpose of a subgroup analysis is to
determine the extent of any such
disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates
impacts on particular subgroups of
consumers by analyzing the LCC
impacts and PBP for those particular
consumers from alternative standard
levels. For this SNOPR, DOE analyzed
the impacts of the considered standard
levels on two subgroups: (1) low-income
households and (2) senior-only
households. The analysis used subsets
of the RECS 2015 sample composed of
households that meet the criteria for the
two subgroups. While the RECS data
offers further disaggregation of these
consumer subgroups by owner or renter
status, DOE only examined the overall
positive LCC savings to these consumer
subgroups and did not further
75 United States Office of Management and
Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis.
September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_
a004_a-4/ (last accessed July 11, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
disaggregate the data. DOE used the LCC
and PBP spreadsheet model to estimate
the impacts of the considered efficiency
levels on these subgroups. Chapter 11 in
the TSD for this SNOPR describes the
consumer subgroup analysis.
DOE requests comment on whether
additional consumer subgroups,
including any disaggregation of the
subgroups analyzed in this SNOPR, may
be disproportionately affected by a new
or amended national standard and
warrant additional analysis in the final
rule.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
DOE performed an MIA to estimate
the financial impacts of new and
amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products and to
estimate the potential impacts of such
standards on employment and
manufacturing capacity. The MIA has
both quantitative and qualitative aspects
and includes analyses of projected
industry cash flows, the INPV,
investments in research and
development (‘‘R&D’’) and
manufacturing capital, and domestic
manufacturing employment.
Additionally, the MIA seeks to
determine how new and amended
energy conservation standards might
affect manufacturing employment,
capacity, and competition, as well as
how standards contribute to overall
regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA
serves to identify any disproportionate
impacts on manufacturer subgroups,
including small business manufacturers.
The quantitative part of the MIA
primarily relies on the GRIM, an
industry cash flow model with inputs
specific to this rulemaking. The key
GRIM inputs include data on the
industry cost structure, unit production
costs, product shipments, manufacturer
margins, and investments in R&D and
manufacturing capital required to
produce compliant products. The key
GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is
the sum of industry annual cash flows
over the analysis period, discounted
using the industry-weighted average
cost of capital, and the impact to
domestic manufacturing employment.
The model uses standard accounting
principles to estimate the impacts of
more-stringent energy conservation
standards on a given industry by
comparing changes in INPV and
domestic manufacturing employment
between a no-new-standards case and
the various standards cases (i.e., TSLs).
To capture the uncertainty relating to
manufacturer pricing strategies
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
following new and amended standards,
the GRIM estimates a range of possible
impacts under different markup
scenarios.
The qualitative part of the MIA
addresses manufacturer characteristics
and market trends. Specifically, the MIA
considers such factors as a potential
standard’s impact on manufacturing
capacity, competition within the
industry, the cumulative impact of other
DOE and non-DOE regulations, and the
impacts on manufacturer subgroups.
The complete MIA is outlined in
chapter 12 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
DOE conducted the MIA for this
rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1
of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of
the consumer conventional cooking
product manufacturing industry based
on the market and technology
assessment, preliminary manufacturer
interviews, and publicly available
information. This included a top-down
analysis of consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers that
DOE used to derive preliminary
financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g.,
revenues; materials, labor, overhead,
and depreciation expenses; selling,
general, and administrative expenses
(‘‘SG&A’’); and R&D expenses). DOE
also used public sources of information
to further calibrate its initial
characterization of the consumer
conventional cooking products
manufacturing industry, including
company filings of form 10–K from the
SEC,76 corporate annual reports, the
U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic
Census,77 and reports from D&B
Hoovers.78
In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared
a framework industry cash-flow analysis
to quantify the potential impacts of new
and amended energy conservation
standards. The GRIM uses several
factors to determine a series of annual
cash flows starting with the
announcement of the standard and
extending over a 30-year period
following the compliance date of the
standard. These factors include annual
expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A
and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital
expenditures. In general, energy
conservation standards can affect
manufacturer cash flow in three distinct
ways: (1) creating a need for increased
investment, (2) raising production costs
per unit, and (3) altering revenue due to
higher per-unit prices and changes in
sales volumes.
76 Available
at www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.
at www.census.gov/programssurveys/asm/data/tables.html.
78 Available at app.avention.com.
77 Available
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6861
In addition, during Phase 2, DOE
developed interview guides to distribute
to manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products in order
to develop other key GRIM inputs,
including product and capital
conversion costs, and to gather
additional information on the
anticipated effects of energy
conservation standards on revenues,
direct employment, capital assets,
industry competitiveness, and subgroup
impacts.
In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE
conducted structured, detailed
interviews with representative
manufacturers. During these interviews,
DOE discussed engineering,
manufacturing, procurement, and
financial topics to validate assumptions
used in the GRIM and to identify key
issues or concerns. As part of Phase 3,
DOE also evaluated subgroups of
manufacturers that may be
disproportionately impacted by new
and amended standards or that may not
be accurately represented by the average
cost assumptions used to develop the
industry cash flow analysis. Such
manufacturer subgroups may include
small business manufacturers, lowvolume manufacturers (‘‘LVMs’’), niche
players, and/or manufacturers
exhibiting a cost structure that largely
differs from the industry average. DOE
identified two manufacturer subgroups
for a separate impact analysis:
commercial-style manufacturers and
small business manufacturers. The
commercial-style manufacturer
subgroup is discussed in section V.B.2.d
of this document. The small business
subgroup is discussed in section VI.B of
this document.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model
and Key Inputs
DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the
changes in cash flow due to new and
amended standards that result in a
higher or lower industry value. The
GRIM uses a standard, annual
discounted cash-flow analysis that
incorporates manufacturer costs,
markups, shipments, and industry
financial information as inputs. The
GRIM models changes in costs,
distribution of shipments, investments,
and manufacturer margins that could
result from new and amended energy
conservation standards. The GRIM
spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at
a series of annual cash flows, beginning
in 2022 (the reference year of the
analysis) and continuing to 2056. DOE
calculated INPVs by summing the
stream of annual discounted cash flows
during this period. For manufacturers of
consumer conventional cooking
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6862
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
products, DOE used a real discount rate
of 9.1 percent, which was derived from
industry financials and then modified
according to feedback received during
manufacturer interviews.
DOE requests comment on the use of
9.1 percent as an appropriate real
discount rate for consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers.
The GRIM calculates cash flows using
standard accounting principles and
compares changes in INPV between the
no-new-standards case and each
standards case. The difference in INPV
between the no-new-standards case and
a standards case represents the financial
impact of the new and amended energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers. As discussed previously,
DOE developed critical GRIM inputs
using a number of sources, including
publicly available data, results of the
engineering analysis, and information
gathered from industry stakeholders
during the course of manufacturer
interviews. The GRIM results are
presented in section V.B.2 of this
document. Additional details about the
GRIM, the discount rate, and other
financial parameters can be found in
chapter 12 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
Manufacturing more efficient
products is typically more expensive
than manufacturing baseline products
due to the use of more complex
components, which are typically more
costly than baseline components. The
changes in the MPCs of the covered
products can affect the revenues,
manufacturer margins, and cash flow of
the industry.
In the MIA, DOE used the MPCs
calculated in the engineering analysis,
as described in section IV.C of this
document and further detailed in
chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
For this SNOPR analysis, DOE used a
design-option approach supported by
testing, supplemented by reverse
engineering (physical teardowns and
testing of existing products in the
market) to identify the incremental cost
and efficiency improvement associated
with each design option or design
option combination. DOE used these
updated MPCs from the engineering
analysis in this MIA.
b. Shipments Projections
The GRIM estimates manufacturer
revenues based on total unit shipment
projections and the distribution of those
shipments by efficiency level. Changes
in sales volumes and efficiency mix
over time can significantly affect
manufacturer finances. For this analysis,
the GRIM uses the NIA’s annual
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
shipment projections derived from the
shipments analysis from 2022 (the
reference year) to 2056 (the end year of
the analysis period). See chapter 9 of the
TSD for this SNOPR for additional
details.
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
New or amended energy conservation
standards could cause manufacturers to
incur conversion costs to bring their
production facilities and product
designs into compliance. DOE evaluated
the level of conversion-related
expenditures that would be needed to
comply with each considered efficiency
level in each product class. For the MIA,
DOE classified these conversion costs
into two major groups: (1) product
conversion costs; and (2) capital
conversion costs. Product conversion
costs are investments in research,
development, testing, marketing, and
other non-capitalized costs necessary to
make product designs comply with new
and amended energy conservation
standards. Capital conversion costs are
investments in property, plant, and
equipment necessary to adapt or change
existing production facilities such that
new compliant product designs can be
fabricated and assembled.
To evaluate the level of capital
conversion costs manufacturers would
likely incur to comply with new and
amended energy conservation
standards, DOE estimated the capital
investments that a major and minor
consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturer would be required to
make to be able to manufacture
compliant products at each efficiency
levels for each product class. DOE then
scaled these cost investment estimates
by the number of major and minor
consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers to arrive at the industry
conversion cost estimates.
To evaluate the level of product
conversion costs manufacturers would
likely incur to comply with amended
energy conservation standards, DOE
estimated the number of consumer
conventional cooking product models
currently on the market, the efficiency
distribution of those models on the
market, the estimated testing cost to test
to the DOE test procedure (for cooking
tops only), and the estimated per model
R&D costs to redesign a non-compliant
model into a compliant model for each
analyzed efficiency level.
DOE used DOE’s Compliance
Certification Database (‘‘CCD’’),79
California Energy Commission’s
79 www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.
Cooking Product-Gas: only contains consumer
conventional cooking products that use gas as a fuel
source.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(‘‘CEC’s’’) MAEDBS database,80 and
Canada’s Natural Resources Canada
database 81 to identify consumer
conventional cooking product models
covered by this rulemaking. DOE used
the efficiency distribution of the
shipments analysis to estimate the
model efficiency distribution. DOE
increased the cost estimates from the
August 2022 TP Final Rule 82 based on
manufacturer feedback and used these
higher per unit testing costs to estimate
the per model testing costs for cooking
tops. Lastly, DOE estimated separate per
model R&D costs for each product class
at each efficiency level based on
manufacturer interviews and inputs
from the engineering analysis. DOE then
combined the per model testing and
R&D costs with the number of models
that would need to be tested and
redesigned to estimate the industry
product conversion costs.
In general, DOE assumes all
conversion-related investments occur
between the year of publication of the
final rule and the year by which
manufacturers must comply with the
new and amended standards. The
conversion cost figures used in the
GRIM can be found in section V.B.2 of
this document. For additional
information on the estimated capital
and product conversion costs, see
chapter 12 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
d. Markup Scenarios
MSPs include direct manufacturing
production costs (i.e., labor, materials,
and overhead estimated in DOE’s MPCs)
and all non-production costs (i.e.,
SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with
profit. To calculate the MSPs in the
GRIM, DOE applied manufacturer
margins to the MPCs estimated in the
engineering analysis for each product
class and efficiency level. Modifying
these margins in the standards case
yields different sets of impacts on
manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE
modeled two standards-case scenarios
to represent uncertainty regarding the
potential impacts on prices and
profitability for manufacturers following
the implementation of new and
amended energy conservation
standards: (1) a preservation of gross
margin scenario; and (2) a preservation
of operating profit scenario. These
80 Available at cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/
Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx.
81 Available at oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/
index.cfm?action=app.welcome-bienvenue. Used to
identify any electric cooking products not identified
in CEC’s database, since many major consumer
conventional cooking product manufacturers sell
the same consumer conventional cooking products
in the US and in Canada.
82 87 FR 51492, 51532–51533.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
scenarios lead to different margins that,
when applied to the MPCs, result in
varying revenue and cash flow impacts
on manufacturers.
Under the preservation of gross
margin scenario, DOE applied the same
‘‘gross margin percentage’’ across all
efficiency levels in the standards-cases
that is used in the no-new-standards
case. This scenario assumes that
manufacturers would be able to
maintain the same margin of 17 percent,
that is used in the no-new-standards
case, in all standards cases, even as the
MPCs increase due to energy
conservation standards.83 This margin is
the same margin that was used in the
December 2020 NOPD. This scenario
represents the upper bound to industry
profitability under new and amended
energy conservation standards.
Under the preservation of operating
profit scenario, DOE modeled a
situation in which manufacturers are
not able to increase per-unit operating
profit in proportion to increases in
MPCs. Under this scenario, as the MPCs
increase, manufacturers reduce their
margins (on a percentage basis) to a
level that maintains the no-newstandards operating profit (in absolute
dollars). The implicit assumption
behind this scenario is that the industry
can only maintain its operating profit in
absolute dollars after compliance with
new and amended standards. Therefore,
operating profit in percentage terms is
reduced between the no-new-standards
case and the analyzed standards cases.
DOE adjusted the margins in the GRIM
at each TSL to yield approximately the
same earnings before interest and taxes
in the standards case in the year after
the compliance date of the new and
amended standards as in the no-newstandards case. This scenario represents
the lower bound to industry profitability
under new and amended energy
conservation standards.
A comparison of industry financial
impacts under the two scenarios is
presented in section V.B.2.a of this
document.
K. Emissions Analysis
The emissions analysis consists of
two components. The first component
estimates the effect of potential energy
conservation standards on power sector
and site (where applicable) combustion
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg.
The second component estimates the
impacts of potential standards on
emissions of two additional greenhouse
gases, CH4 and N2O, as well as the
reductions to emissions of other gases
83 The gross margin percentage of 17 percent is
based on a manufacturer markup of 1.20.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
due to ‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel
production chain. These upstream
activities comprise extraction,
processing, and transporting fuels to the
site of combustion.
The analysis of electric power sector
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg
uses emissions factors intended to
represent the marginal impacts of the
change in electricity consumption
associated with amended or new
standards. The methodology is based on
results published for the AEO, including
a set of side cases that implement a
variety of efficiency-related policies.
The methodology is described in
appendix 13A in the TSD for this
SNOPR. The analysis presented in this
notice uses projections from AEO2022.
Power sector emissions of CH4 and N2O
from fuel combustion are estimated
using Emission Factors for Greenhouse
Gas Inventories published by the
Environmental Protection Agency
(‘‘EPA’’).84
The on-site operation of consumer
conventional cooking products requires
combustion of fossil fuels and results in
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, CH4, and
N2O, where these products are used.
Site emissions of these gases were
estimated using Emission Factors for
Greenhouse Gas Inventories and, for
NOX and SO2 emissions intensity factors
from an EPA publication.85
A 2022 study by Stanford University
(‘‘Stanford Study’’), which measured
methane emissions in 53 California
homes, suggests that gas ranges
(including the gas cooking top and gas
oven portions) contribute methane
emissions that were estimated to be 0.8
to 1.3 percent of gas consumption for
active (cooking) mode due to
incomplete combustion and post-meter
leakage during active, standby, and off
modes.86 Further, a significant majority
(three-quarters) of these emissions take
place during standby mode due to
leakage. In active mode, the Stanford
Study noted that such emissions
occurred both during steady-state
operation and during burner ignition/
extinction. Gas cooking tops with
standing pilot lights released on average
over 10 times the methane during each
84 Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_
apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12, 2021).
85 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
External Combustion Sources. In Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors. AP–42. Fifth Edition.
Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources.
Chapter 1. Available at www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/
ap42/ (last accessed June 28, 2022).
86 E.D. Lebel, C.J. Finnegan, Z. Ouyang, and R.B.
Jackson, ‘‘Methane and NOX Emissions from
Natural Gas Stoves, Cooktops, and Ovens in
Residential Homes,’’ Environmental Science and
Technology 2022, Vol. 56, pp. 2529–2539.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6863
ignition event than those with electronic
spark ignition. Regarding standby mode,
the Stanford Study found that 48 out of
the 53 gas ranges measured, along with
their associated nearby piping, leaked
some methane continuously. The
Stanford Study estimated that, over a
20-year analysis period, the annual
methane emissions from all gas-fired
consumer conventional cooking
products in U.S. homes have a climate
impact comparable to the annual CO2
emissions from 500,000 automobiles.
Additionally, increased methane
emissions contribute to the formation of
surface level ozone which has been
linked to negative health outcomes.
Studies from the emerging field of
indoor air quality have measured
emissions of additional pollutants
associated with gas cooking products
not quantified in this SNOPR analysis
that may potentially contribute to
negative health impacts, especially in
areas with inadequate ventilation.87 88
Such in-home emissions may be
associated with a variety of serious
respiratory and cardiovascular
conditions and other health risks.
Reduced in-home gas combustion may
deliver additional health benefits to
consumers and their families by
reducing exposure to various pollutants.
The level of health benefits may also
depend on the degree to which a
household uses or has access to proper
ventilation. Although the benefits in
reductions of these pollutants are not
quantified in this SNOPR analysis,
reductions of on-site emissions provide
health benefits to sensitive populations
such as children, elderly, and
household members with respiratory
conditions.89 These subgroups are likely
to experience more acutely health
effects that are caused or exacerbated by
the on-site emissions. DOE
acknowledges the potential heath
impact of these emissions, but notes the
uncertainty in quantifying their impact
in this emerging area of study.
DOE notes that the current energy
conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products
established in the April 2009 Final Rule
prohibit constant burning pilots for all
gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking
87 J. Logue, N., Klepeis N, A. Lobscheid A, B.
Singer B, ‘‘Pollutant exposures from natural gas
cooking burners: a simulation-based assessment for
Southern California’’ Environ Health Perspect,
2014, Vol 122, pp. 43–50.
88 Eric D. Lebel et. al ‘‘Composition, Emissions,
and Air Quality Impacts of Hazardous Air
Pollutants in Unburned Natural Gas from
Residential Stoves in California’’, Environmental
Science & Technology, October 2022.
89 Seals, D and Krasner A, ‘‘Health Effects from
Gas Stove Pollution’’, Rocky Mountain Institute.
2020.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6864
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
products both with or without an
electrical supply cord) manufactured on
and after April 9, 2012. 10 CFR
430.32(j)(1)–(2). In this SNOPR, DOE
analyzed a design option and
corresponding efficiency levels for gas
cooking tops, optimized burner/
improved grates, that are associated
with improvements in combustion
characteristics. In general, higher
efficiency burner systems correlate with
more complete combustion and thus
more efficient conversion of the energy
content in the gas to thermal energy.
DOE seeks comment on any health
impacts to consumers, environmental
impacts, or general public health and
welfare impacts (including the
distribution of such impacts across
sensitive populations) of its proposals in
this SNOPR on on-site emissions from
gas cooking products of methane,
carbon dioxide, particulate matter,
nitrogen dioxide, or other hazardous air
emissions. DOE also seeks comment on
whether manufacturers are instituting
design approaches, control strategies, or
other measures to mitigate methane or
other emissions from incomplete
combustion and leakage.
FFC upstream emissions, which
include emissions from fuel combustion
during extraction, processing, and
transportation of fuels, and ‘‘fugitive’’
emissions (direct leakage to the
atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2, are
estimated based on the methodology
described in chapter 15 of the TSD for
this SNOPR.
The emissions intensity factors are
expressed in terms of physical units per
MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings.
For power sector emissions, specific
emissions intensity factors are
calculated by sector and end use. Total
emissions reductions are estimated
using the energy savings calculated in
the national impact analysis.
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated
in DOE’s Analysis
DOE’s no-new-standards case for the
electric power sector reflects the AEO,
which incorporates the projected
impacts of existing air quality
regulations on emissions. AEO2022
generally represents current legislation
and environmental regulations,
including recent government actions,
that were in place at the time of
preparation of AEO2022, including the
emissions control programs discussed in
the following paragraphs.90
90 For further information, see the Assumptions to
AEO2022 report that sets forth the major
assumptions used to generate the projections in the
Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/
outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed June 28,
2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
SO2 emissions from affected electric
generating units (‘‘EGUs’’) are subject to
nationwide and regional emissions capand-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 CrossState Air Pollution Rule (‘‘CSAPR’’). 76
FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR
requires these States to reduce certain
emissions, including annual SO2
emissions, and went into effect as of
January 1, 2015.91 AEO2022
incorporates implementation of CSAPR,
including the update to the CSAPR
ozone season program emission budgets
and target dates issued in 2016. 81 FR
74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). Compliance with
CSAPR is flexible among EGUs and is
enforced through the use of tradable
emissions allowances. Under existing
EPA regulations, any excess SO2
emissions allowances resulting from the
lower electricity demand caused by the
adoption of an efficiency standard could
be used to permit offsetting increases in
SO2 emissions by another regulated
EGU.
However, beginning in 2016, SO2
emissions began to fall as a result of the
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(‘‘MATS’’) for power plants. 77 FR 9304
(Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final rule,
EPA established a standard for hydrogen
chloride as a surrogate for acid gas
hazardous air pollutants (‘‘HAP’’), and
also established a standard for SO2 (a
non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative
equivalent surrogate standard for acid
gas HAP. The same controls are used to
reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas;
thus, SO2 emissions are being reduced
as a result of the control technologies
installed on coal-fired power plants to
comply with the MATS requirements
for acid gas. In order to continue
operating, coal power plants must have
either flue gas desulfurization or dry
sorbent injection systems installed. Both
technologies, which are used to reduce
acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2
91 CSAPR
requires states to address annual
emissions of SO2 and NOX, precursors to the
formation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
pollution, in order to address the interstate
transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(‘‘NAAQS’’). CSAPR also requires certain states to
address the ozone season (May-September)
emissions of NOX, a precursor to the formation of
ozone pollution, in order to address the interstate
transport of ozone pollution with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011).
EPA subsequently issued a supplemental rule that
included an additional five states in the CSAPR
ozone season program. 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011)
(Supplemental Rule).
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
emissions. Because of the emissions
reductions under the MATS, it is
unlikely that excess SO2 emissions
allowances resulting from the lower
electricity demand would be needed or
used to permit offsetting increases in
SO2 emissions by another regulated
EGU. Therefore, energy conservation
standards that decrease electricity
generation would generally reduce SO2
emissions. DOE estimated SO2
emissions reduction using emissions
factors based on AEO2022.
CSAPR also established limits on NOX
emissions for numerous States in the
eastern half of the United States. Energy
conservation standards would have
little effect on NOX emissions in those
States covered by CSAPR emissions
limits if excess NOX emissions
allowances resulting from the lower
electricity demand could be used to
permit offsetting increases in NOX
emissions from other EGUs. In such
case, NOX emissions would remain near
the limit even if electricity generation
goes down. A different case could
possibly result, depending on the
configuration of the power sector in the
different regions and the need for
allowances, such that NOX emissions
might not remain at the limit in the case
of lower electricity demand. In this case,
energy conservation standards might
reduce NOX emissions in covered
States. Despite this possibility, DOE has
chosen to be conservative in its analysis
and has maintained the assumption that
standards will not reduce NOX
emissions in States covered by CSAPR.
Energy conservation standards would be
expected to reduce NOX emissions in
the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE
used AEO2022 data to derive NOX
emissions factors for the group of States
not covered by CSAPR.
The MATS limit mercury emissions
from power plants, but they do not
include emissions caps and, as such,
DOE’s energy conservation standards
would be expected to slightly reduce Hg
emissions. DOE estimated mercury
emissions reduction using emissions
factors based on AEO2022, which
incorporates the MATS.
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
As part of the development of this
proposed rule, for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of
Executive Order 12866, DOE considered
the estimated monetary benefits from
the reduced emissions of CO2, CH4,
N2O, NOX, and SO2 that are expected to
result from each of the TSLs considered.
In order to make this calculation
analogous to the calculation of the NPV
of consumer benefit, DOE considered
the reduced emissions expected to
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
result over the lifetime of products
shipped in the projection period for
each TSL. This section summarizes the
basis for the values used for monetizing
the emissions benefits and presents the
values considered in this SNOPR.
On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087)
granted the Federal government’s
emergency motion for stay pending
appeal of the February 11, 2022,
preliminary injunction issued in
Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–
JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the
Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary
injunction is no longer in effect,
pending resolution of the Federal
government’s appeal of that injunction
or a further court order. Among other
things, the preliminary injunction
enjoined the defendants in that case
from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as
binding, or relying upon’’ the interim
estimates of the social cost of
greenhouse gases—which were issued
by the Interagency Working Group on
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on
February 26, 2021—to monetize the
benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE
has reverted to its approach prior to the
injunction and presents monetized
benefits where appropriate and
permissible under law. However, DOE
notes it would reach the same
conclusion presented in this proposed
rulemaking that the proposed standards
are economically justified no matter
what value is ascribed to climate
benefits. DOE requests comment on how
to address the climate benefits and other
non-monetized effects of the proposal.
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
DOE estimates the monetized benefits
of the reductions in emissions of CO2,
CH4, and N2O by using a measure of the
social cost (‘‘SC’’) of each pollutant (e.g.,
SC-CO2). These estimates represent the
monetary value of the net harm to
society associated with a marginal
increase in emissions of these pollutants
in a given year, or the benefit of
avoiding that increase. These estimates
are intended to include (but are not
limited to) climate-change-related
changes in net agricultural productivity,
human health, property damages from
increased flood risk, disruption of
energy systems, risk of conflict,
environmental migration, and the value
of ecosystem services.
DOE exercises its own judgment in
presenting monetized climate benefits
as recommended by applicable
Executive orders and DOE would reach
the same conclusion presented in this
proposed rulemaking in the absence of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
the social cost of greenhouse gases. That
is, the social costs of greenhouse gases,
whether measured using the February
2021 interim estimates presented by the
Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases or by
another means, did not affect the rule
ultimately proposed by DOE.
DOE estimated the global social
benefits of CO2, CH4, and N2O
reductions (i.e., SC-GHGs) using the
estimates presented in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates under Executive
Order 13990, published in February
2021 by the IWG. The SC-GHGs is the
monetary value of the net harm to
society associated with a marginal
increase in emissions in a given year, or
the benefit of avoiding that increase. In
principle, SC-GHGs includes the value
of all climate change impacts, including
(but not limited to) changes in net
agricultural productivity, human health
effects, property damage from increased
flood risk and natural disasters,
disruption of energy systems, risk of
conflict, environmental migration, and
the value of ecosystem services. The SCGHGs therefore, reflects the societal
value of reducing emissions of the gas
in question by one metric ton. The SCGHGs is the theoretically appropriate
value to use in conducting benefit-cost
analyses of policies that affect CO2, N2O
and CH4 emissions. As a member of the
IWG involved in the development of the
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE
agrees that the interim SC-GHG
estimates represent the most appropriate
estimate of the SC-GHG until revised
estimates have been developed
reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed
science.
The SC-GHGs estimates presented
here were developed over many years,
using a transparent process, peerreviewed methodologies, the best
science available at the time of that
process, and with input from the public.
Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, that
included the DOE and other executive
branch agencies and offices, was
established to ensure that agencies were
using the best available science and to
promote consistency in the social cost of
carbon (i.e., SC-CO2) values used across
agencies. The IWG published SC-CO2
estimates in 2010 that were developed
from an ensemble of three widely cited
integrated assessment models (‘‘IAMs’’)
that estimate global climate damages
using highly aggregated representations
of climate processes and the global
economy combined into a single
modeling framework. The three IAMs
were run using a common set of input
assumptions in each model for future
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6865
population, economic, and CO2
emissions growth, as well as
equilibrium climate sensitivity—a
measure of the globally averaged
temperature response to increased
atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These
estimates were updated in 2013 based
on new versions of each IAM. In August
2016, the IWG published estimates of
the social cost of methane (i.e., SC-CH4)
and nitrous oxide (i.e., SC-N2O) using
methodologies that are consistent with
the methodology underlying the SC-CO2
estimates. The modeling approach that
extends the IWG SC-CO2 methodology
to non-CO2 GHGs has undergone
multiple stages of peer review. The SCCH4 and SC-N2O estimates were
developed by Marten et al.92 and
underwent a standard double-blind peer
review process prior to journal
publication. In 2015, as part of the
response to public comments received
to a 2013 solicitation for comments on
the SC-CO2 estimates, the IWG
announced a National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
review of the SC-CO2 estimates to offer
advice on how to approach future
updates to ensure that the estimates
continue to reflect the best available
science and methodologies. In January
2017, the National Academies released
their final report, ‘‘Valuing Climate
Damages: Updating Estimation of the
Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide,’’ and
recommended specific criteria for future
updates to the SC-CO2 estimates, a
modeling framework to satisfy the
specified criteria, and both near-term
updates and longer-term research needs
pertaining to various components of the
estimation process (National
Academies, 2017).93 Shortly thereafter,
in March 2017, President Trump issued
Executive Order 13783, which
disbanded the IWG, withdrew the
previous TSDs, and directed agencies to
ensure SC-CO2 estimates used in
regulatory analyses are consistent with
the guidance contained in OMB’s
Circular A–4, ‘‘including with respect to
the consideration of domestic versus
international impacts and the
consideration of appropriate discount
rates’’ (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)).
Benefit-cost analyses following E.O.
13783 used SC-GHG estimates that
attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific
92 Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C.
Newbold, and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and
N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the US
Government’s SC-CO2 estimates. Climate Policy.
2015. 15(2): pp. 272–298.
93 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating
Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide.
2017. The National Academies Press: Washington,
DC.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
6866
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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.
On January 20, 2021, President Biden
issued Executive Order 13990, which reestablished the IWG and directed it to
ensure that the U.S. Government’s
estimates of the social cost of carbon
and other greenhouse gases reflect the
best available science and the
recommendations of the National
Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked
with first reviewing the SC-GHG
estimates currently used in Federal
analyses and publishing interim
estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that
reflect the full impact of GHG
emissions, including by taking global
damages into account. The interim SCGHG estimates published in February
2021 are used here to estimate the
climate benefits for this proposed
rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG
to undertake a fuller update of the SCGHG estimates by January 2022 that
takes into consideration the advice of
the National Academies (2017) and
other recent scientific literature. The
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a
complete discussion of the IWG’s initial
review conducted under E.O. 13990. In
particular, the IWG found that the SCGHG 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 SCGHG. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
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 SCGHG TSD, DOE agrees with this
assessment and, therefore, in this
proposed rule DOE centers attention on
a global measure of SC-GHG. This
approach is the same as that taken in
DOE regulatory analyses from 2012
through 2016. A robust estimate of
climate damages that accrue only to U.S.
citizens and residents does not currently
exist in the literature. As explained in
the February 2021 TSD, existing
estimates are both incomplete and an
underestimate of total damages that
accrue to the citizens and residents of
the U.S. because they do not fully
capture the regional interactions and
spillovers discussed above, nor do they
include all of the important physical,
ecological, and economic impacts of
climate change recognized in the
climate change literature. As noted in
the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the
IWG will continue to review
developments in the literature,
including more robust methodologies
for estimating a U.S.-specific SC-GHG
value, and explore ways to better inform
the public of the full range of carbon
impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE
will continue to follow developments in
the literature pertaining to this issue.
Second, the IWG found that the use of
the social rate of return on capital (7
percent under current OMB Circular A–
4 guidance) to discount the future
benefits of reducing GHG emissions
inappropriately underestimates the
impacts of climate change for the
purposes of estimating the SC-GHG.
Consistent with the findings of the
National Academies (2017) and the
economic literature, the IWG continued
to conclude that the consumption rate of
interest is the theoretically appropriate
discount rate in an intergenerational
context,94 and recommended that
94 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Carbon. Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis under Executive Order 12866. 2010.
United States Government. (Last accessed April 15,
2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/
documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf; Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Technical Update
of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013. (Last
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
discount rate uncertainty and relevant
aspects of intergenerational ethical
considerations be accounted for in
selecting future discount rates.
Furthermore, the damage estimates
developed for use in the SC-GHG are
estimated in consumption-equivalent
terms, and so an application of OMB
Circular A–4’s guidance for regulatory
analysis would then use the
consumption discount rate to calculate
the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this
assessment and will continue to follow
developments in the literature
pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes
that while OMB Circular A–4, as
published in 2003, recommends using
3- and 7-percent discount rates as
‘‘default’’ values, Circular A–4 also
reminds agencies that ‘‘different
regulations may call for different
emphases in the analysis, depending on
the nature and complexity of the
regulatory issues and the sensitivity of
the benefit and cost estimates to the key
assumptions.’’ On discounting, Circular
A–4 recognizes that ‘‘special ethical
considerations arise when comparing
benefits and costs across generations,’’
and Circular A–4 acknowledges that
analyses may appropriately ‘‘discount
future costs and consumption benefits
[. . .] at a lower rate than for
intragenerational analysis.’’ In the 2015
Response to Comments on the Social
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG
members recognized that ‘‘Circular A–4
is a living document’’ and ‘‘the use of
7 percent is not considered appropriate
for intergenerational discounting. There
is wide support for this view in the
academic literature, and it is recognized
in Circular A–4 itself.’’ Thus, DOE
concludes that a 7 percent discount rate
is not appropriate to apply to value the
social cost of greenhouse gases in the
analysis presented in this analysis.
To calculate the present and
annualized values of climate benefits,
accessed April 15, 2022.) www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technicalsupport-document-technical-update-of-the-socialcost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact; Interagency
Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases,
United States Government. Technical Support
Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of
Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under
Executive Order 12866. August 2016. (Last accessed
January 18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/
2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf;
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases, United States Government.
Addendum to Technical Support Document on
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application
of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of
Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide.
August 2016. (Last accessed January 18, 2022.)
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/
documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_
2016.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DOE uses the same discount rate as the
rate used to discount the value of
damages from future GHG emissions, for
internal consistency. That approach to
discounting follows the same approach
that the February 2021 TSD
recommends ‘‘to ensure internal
consistency—i.e., future damages from
climate change using the SC-GHG at 2.5
percent should be discounted to the
base year of the analysis using the same
2.5 percent rate.’’ DOE has also
consulted the National Academies’ 2017
recommendations on how SC-GHG
estimates can ‘‘be combined in RIAs
[regulatory impact analyses] with other
cost and benefits estimates that may use
different discount rates.’’ The National
Academies reviewed ‘‘several options,’’
including ‘‘presenting all discount rate
combinations of other costs and benefits
with [SC-GHG] estimates.’’
As a member of the IWG involved in
the development of the February 2021
SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this
assessment and will continue to follow
developments in the literature
pertaining to this issue. While the IWG
works to assess how best to incorporate
the latest, peer reviewed science to
develop an updated set of SC-GHG
estimates, it set the interim estimates to
be the most recent estimates developed
by the IWG prior to the group being
disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely
on the same models and harmonized
inputs and are calculated using a range
of discount rates. As explained in the
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG
has recommended that agencies revert
to the same set of four values drawn
from the SC-GHG distributions based on
three discount rates as were used in
regulatory analyses between 2010 and
2016 and subject to public comment.
For each discount rate, the IWG
combined the distributions across
models and socioeconomic emissions
scenarios (applying equal weight to
each) and then selected a set of four
values recommended for use in benefitcost 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 benefitcost 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 SCGHG estimates. First, the current
scientific and economic understanding
of discounting approaches suggests
discount rates appropriate for
intergenerational analysis in the context
of climate change are likely to be less
than 3 percent, near 2 percent or
lower.95 Second, the IAMs used to
produce these interim estimates do not
include all of the important physical,
ecological, and economic impacts of
climate change recognized in the
climate change literature and the
science underlying their ‘‘damage
functions’’—i.e., the core parts of the
IAMs that map global mean temperature
changes and other physical impacts of
climate change into economic (both
market and nonmarket) damages—lags
behind the most recent research. For
example, limitations include the
incomplete treatment of catastrophic
and non-catastrophic impacts in the
integrated assessment models, their
6867
incomplete treatment of adaptation and
technological change, the incomplete
way in which inter-regional and
intersectoral linkages are modeled,
uncertainty in the extrapolation of
damages to high temperatures, and
inadequate representation of the
relationship between the discount rate
and uncertainty in economic growth
over long time horizons. Likewise, the
socioeconomic and emissions scenarios
used as inputs to the models do not
reflect new information from the last
decade of scenario generation or the full
range of projections. The modeling
limitations do not all work in the same
direction in terms of their influence on
the SC-CO2 estimates. However, as
discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the
IWG has recommended that, taken
together, the limitations suggest that the
interim SC-GHG estimates used in this
SNOPR likely underestimate the
damages from GHG emissions. DOE
concurs with this assessment.
DOE’s derivations of the SC-GHG
values (i.e., SC-CO2, SC-N2O, and SCCH4) used for this SNOPR are discussed
in the following sections, and the results
of DOE’s analyses estimating the
benefits of the reductions in emissions
of these GHGs are presented in section
V.B.6 of this document.
a. Social Cost of Carbon
The SC-CO2 values used for this
SNOPR were based on the values
presented for the IWG’s February 2021
TSD. Table IV.34 shows the updated
sets of SC-CO2 estimates from the IWG’s
February 2021 TSD in 5-year increments
from 2020 to 2050. The full set of
annual values that DOE used is
presented in appendix 14A of the TSD
for this SNOPR. For purposes of
capturing the uncertainties involved in
regulatory impact analysis, DOE has
determined it is appropriate include all
four sets of SC-CO2 values, as
recommended by the IWG.96
TABLE IV.34—ANNUAL SC-CO2 VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050
[2020$ per metric ton CO2]
Discount rate
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Year
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
5%
(average)
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
95 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support
Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and
Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive
Order 13990. February. United States Government.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
3%
(average)
14
17
19
22
25
Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidencebased-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climatepollution/.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2.5%
(average)
51
56
62
67
73
76
83
89
96
103
3%
(95th percentile)
152
169
187
206
225
96 For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses
how the understanding of discounting approaches
suggests that discount rates appropriate for
intergenerational analysis in the context of climate
change may be lower than 3 percent.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6868
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.34—ANNUAL SC-CO2 VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050—Continued
[2020$ per metric ton CO2]
Discount rate
Year
5%
(average)
2045 .........................................................................................................
2050 .........................................................................................................
For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC-CO2
estimates published by EPA, adjusted to
2020$.97 These estimates are based on
methods, assumptions, and parameters
identical to the 2020–2050 estimates
published by the IWG. DOE expects
additional climate benefits to accrue for
any longer-life consumer conventional
cooking products after 2070, but a lack
of available SC-CO2 estimates for
emissions years beyond 2070 prevents
DOE from monetizing these potential
benefits in this analysis. DOE notes that
the SC-CO2 monetization results
presented in this SNOPR are a
conservative estimate and that the
inclusion of emissions after 2070 would
slightly increase estimated benefits.
3%
(average)
28
32
DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions
reduction estimated for each year by the
SC-CO2 value for that year in each of the
four cases. DOE adjusted the values to
2021$ using the implicit price deflator
for gross domestic product (‘‘GDP’’)
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
To calculate a present value of the
stream of monetary values, DOE
discounted the values in each of the
four cases using the specific discount
rate that had been used to obtain the SCCO2 values in each case.
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous
Oxide
2.5%
(average)
79
85
3%
(95th percentile)
110
116
242
260
values developed for the February 2021
TSD. Table IV.35 shows the updated
sets of SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates
from the latest interagency update in 5year increments from 2020 to 2050. The
full set of annual values used is
presented in appendix 14A of the TSD
for this SNOPR. To capture the
uncertainties involved in regulatory
impact analysis, DOE has determined it
is appropriate to include all four sets of
SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values, as
recommended by the IWG. DOE derived
values after 2050 using the approach
described above for the SC-CO2.
The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values used
for this SNOPR were based on the
TABLE IV.35—ANNUAL SC-CH4 AND SC-N2O VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050
[2020$ per metric ton]
Year
5%
(average)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
SC-CH4
SC-N2O
Discount rate and statistic
Discount rate and statistic
3%
(average)
670
800
940
1100
1300
1500
1700
2.5%
(average)
1500
1700
2000
2200
2500
2800
3100
2000
2200
2500
2800
3100
3500
3800
DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O
emissions reduction estimated for each
year by the SC-CH4 and SC-N2O
estimates for that year in each of the
cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2021$
using the implicit price deflator for GDP
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
To calculate a present value of the
stream of monetary values, DOE
discounted the values in each of the
cases using the specific discount rate
that had been used to obtain the SC-CH4
and SC-N2O estimates in each case.
97 See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year
Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards:
Regulatory Impact Analysis, Washington, DC,
December 2021. Available at: www.epa.gov/system/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
3%
(95th percentile)
3900
4500
5200
6000
6700
7500
8200
5%
(average)
5800
6800
7800
9000
10000
12000
13000
2. Monetization of Other Emissions
Impacts
For the SNOPR, DOE estimated the
monetized value of NOX and SO2
emissions reductions from electricity
generation using the latest benefit per
ton estimates for that sector from the
EPA’s Benefits Mapping and Analysis
Program.98 DOE used EPA’s values for
PM2.5-related benefits associated with
NOX and SO2 and for ozone-related
benefits associated with NOX for 2025,
2030, and 2040, calculated with
discount rates of 3 percent and 7
percent. DOE used linear interpolation
files/documents/2021-12/420r21028.pdf (last
accessed January 13, 2022).
98 Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing
PM2.5 Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
3%
(average)
2.5%
(average)
18000
21000
23000
25000
28000
30000
33000
27000
30000
33000
36000
39000
42000
45000
3%
(95th percentile)
48000
54000
60000
67000
74000
81000
88000
to define values for the years not given
in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years
beyond 2040 the values are held
constant. DOE derived values specific to
the sector for consumer conventional
cooking products using a method
described in appendix 14B of the TSD
for this SNOPR.
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
www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-tonreducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
specifically to residential and
commercial buildings, the sector called
‘‘area sources’’ would be a reasonable
proxy for residential and commercial
buildings.99 The EPA document
provides high and low estimates for
2025 and 2030 at 3- and 7-percent
discount rates.100 DOE used the same
linear interpolation and extrapolation as
it did with the values for electricity
generation. DOE notes that in-home
emissions may carry different
monetized health risks than the risks
assumed in the monetized health
benefits calculations.
DOE multiplied the site emissions
reduction (in tons) in each year by the
associated $/ton values, and then
discounted each series using discount
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as
appropriate. DOE will continue to
evaluate the monetization of avoided
NOX emissions and will make any
appropriate updates for the final rule.
Additional details on the monetization
of NOX and SO2 emissions reductions
are included in chapter 14 of the TSD
for this SNOPR.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
M. Utility Impact Analysis
The utility impact analysis estimates
several effects on the electric power
generation industry that would result
from the adoption of new or amended
energy conservation standards. The
utility impact analysis estimates the
changes in installed electrical capacity
and generation that would result for
each TSL. The analysis is based on
published output from the NEMS
associated with AEO2022. NEMS
produces the AEO Reference case, as
well as a number of side cases that
estimate the economy-wide impacts of
changes to energy supply and demand.
For the current analysis, impacts are
quantified by comparing the levels of
electricity sector generation, installed
capacity, fuel consumption and
emissions in the AEO2022 Reference
case and various side cases. Details of
the methodology are provided in the
appendices to chapters 13 and 15 of the
TSD for this SNOPR.
The output of this analysis is a set of
time-dependent coefficients that capture
the change in electricity generation,
primary fuel consumption, installed
99 ‘‘Area sources’’ represents all emission sources
for which states do not have exact (point) locations
in their emissions inventories. Because exact
locations would tend to be associated with larger
sources, ‘‘area sources’’ would be fairly
representative of small dispersed sources like
homes and businesses.
100 ‘‘Area sources’’ are a category in the 2018
document from EPA, but are not used in the 2021
document cited above. See: www.epa.gov/sites/
default/files/2018-02/documents/
sourceapportionmentbpttsd_2018.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
capacity and power sector emissions
due to a unit reduction in demand for
a given end use. These coefficients are
multiplied by the stream of electricity
savings calculated in the NIA to provide
estimates of selected utility impacts of
potential new or amended energy
conservation standards.
In response to the September 2016
SNOPR, the Joint Gas Associations
commented that DOE should conduct a
similar analysis on natural gas utilities
as it conducted on electric utilities to
assess the impact of the proposed
efficiency requirements on that segment
of the energy industry. (Joint Gas
Associations, No. 68 at pp. 3–4) The
Joint Gas Associations added that a shift
from natural gas cooking products to
electric cooking products would impact
the electric grid requirements. (Id.)
DOE notes that the utility impact
analysis as applied to electric utilities
only estimates the change to capacity
and generation as a result of a standard,
as modeled in NEMS, and there is no
gas utility analog. DOE further notes
that the impact to natural gas utility
sales is equivalent to the natural gas
saved by the proposed standard and
includes those results in chapter 15 of
the TSD for this SNOPR.
N. Employment Impact Analysis
DOE considers employment impacts
in the domestic economy as one factor
in selecting a proposed standard.
Employment impacts from new or
amended energy conservation standards
include both direct and indirect
impacts. Direct employment impacts are
any changes in the number of
employees of manufacturers of the
products subject to standards, their
suppliers, and related service firms. The
MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect
employment impacts are changes in
national employment that occur due to
the shift in expenditures and capital
investment caused by the purchase and
operation of more-efficient appliances.
Indirect employment impacts from
standards consist of the net jobs created
or eliminated in the national economy,
other than in the manufacturing sector
being regulated, caused by (1) reduced
spending by consumers on energy, (2)
reduced spending on new energy supply
by the utility industry, (3) increased
consumer spending on the products to
which the new standards apply and
other goods and services, and (4) the
effects of those three factors throughout
the economy.
One method for assessing the possible
effects on the demand for labor of such
shifts in economic activity is to compare
sector employment statistics developed
by the Labor Department’s Bureau of
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6869
Labor Statistics (‘‘BLS’’). BLS regularly
publishes its estimates of the number of
jobs per million dollars of economic
activity in different sectors of the
economy, as well as the jobs created
elsewhere in the economy by this same
economic activity. Data from BLS
indicate that expenditures in the utility
sector generally create fewer jobs (both
directly and indirectly) than
expenditures in other sectors of the
economy.101 There are many reasons for
these differences, including wage
differences and the fact that the utility
sector is more capital-intensive and less
labor-intensive than other sectors.
Energy conservation standards have the
effect of reducing consumer utility bills.
Because reduced consumer
expenditures for energy likely lead to
increased expenditures in other sectors
of the economy, the general effect of
efficiency standards is to shift economic
activity from a less labor-intensive
sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more
labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail
and service sectors). Thus, the BLS data
suggest that net national employment
may increase due to shifts in economic
activity resulting from energy
conservation standards.
DOE estimated indirect national
employment impacts for the standard
levels considered in this SNOPR using
an input/output model of the U.S.
economy called Impact of Sector Energy
Technologies version 4 (‘‘ImSET’’).102
ImSET is a special-purpose version of
the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (‘‘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.
DOE notes that ImSET is not a general
equilibrium forecasting model, and that
the uncertainties involved in projecting
employment impacts, especially
changes in the later years of the
analysis. Because ImSET does not
incorporate price changes, the
employment effects predicted by ImSET
may over-estimate actual job impacts
101 See U.S. Department of Commerce—Bureau of
Economic Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User
Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling
System (RIMS II). 1997. U.S. Government Printing
Office: Washington, DC. Available at apps.bea.gov/
scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf (last
accessed July 11, 2022).
102 Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and
R.W. Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy
Technologies Model Description and User Guide.
2015. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory:
Richland, WA. PNNL–24563.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6870
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
regarding DOE’s analyses are contained
in the TSD for this SNOPR supporting
this document.
over the long run for this rule.
Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to
generate results for near-term
timeframes (2027), where these
uncertainties are reduced. For more
details on the employment impact
analysis, see chapter 16 of the TSD for
this SNOPR.
A. Trial Standard Levels
In general, DOE typically evaluates
potential new or amended standards for
products and equipment by grouping
individual efficiency levels for each
class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE
to identify and consider manufacturer
cost interactions between the product
classes, to the extent that there are such
interactions, and market cross elasticity
from consumer purchasing decisions
that may change when different
standard levels are set.
In the analysis conducted for this
SNOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits and
burdens of three TSLs for consumer
conventional cooking products. DOE
developed TSLs that combine efficiency
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the
results from DOE’s analyses with
respect to the considered energy
conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products. It
addresses the TSLs examined by DOE,
the projected impacts of each of these
levels if adopted as energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional
cooking products, and the standards
levels that DOE is proposing to adopt in
this SNOPR. Additional details
levels for each analyzed product class.
DOE presents the results for the TSLs in
this document, while the results for all
efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are
in the TSD for this SNOPR.
Table V.1 through Table V.3 present
the TSLs and the corresponding
efficiency levels that DOE has identified
for potential amended energy
conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products. TSL 3
represents the maximum
technologically feasible (max-tech)
energy efficiency for all product classes.
TSL 2 represents an intermediate TSL.
TSL 1 is configured with the minimum
efficiency improvement in each product
class corresponding to electronic
controls for electric cooking tops,
optimized burners for gas cooking tops,
and switch mode power supplies for
ovens.
TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR COOKING TOP MARKET
Electric open (coil) element cooking tops
Trial standard level
IAEC
(kWh/year)
EL
1 ..........................................
2 ..........................................
3 ..........................................
Electric smooth element
cooking tops
Baseline ..............................
Baseline ..............................
Baseline ..............................
IAEC
(kWh/year)
EL
199
199
199
Gas cooking tops
1
1
3
IAEC
(kBtu/year)
EL
207
207
179
1
2
2
1,440
1,204
1,204
TABLE V.2—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CONVENTIONAL ELECTRIC OVEN
Standard electric ovens
Freestanding
Trial standard level
1 ........................................
2 ........................................
3 ........................................
Built-in/slide-in
IEAO
(kWh/year)
EL
Self-clean electric ovens
1
1
3
EL
302.0
302.0
235.3
Freestanding
IEAO
(kWh/year)
1
1
3
Built-in/slide-in
IEAO
(kWh/year)
EL
308.9
308.9
242.1
1
1
3
IEAO
(kWh/year)
EL
341.7
341.7
275.0
1
1
3
348.1
348.1
281.4
TABLE V.3—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CONVENTIONAL GAS OVEN
Standard gas ovens
Freestanding
Trial standard level
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1 ........................................
2 ........................................
3 ........................................
1
1
2
19:29 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
Freestanding
IEAO
(kBtu/year)
EL
2,041
2,041
1,908
DOE constructed the TSLs for this
SNOPR to include ELs representative of
ELs with similar characteristics (i.e.,
using similar technologies and/or
efficiencies, and having roughly
comparable equipment availability). The
use of representative ELs provided for
greater distinction between the TSLs.
While representative ELs were included
in the TSLs, DOE considered all
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Built-in/slide-in
IEAO
(kBtu/year)
EL
Self-clean gas ovens
1
1
2
EL
2,062
2,062
1,929
Built-in/slide-in
IEAO
(kBtu/year)
1
1
2
1,915
1,915
1,781
IEAO
(kBtu/year)
EL
1
1
2
1,937
1,937
1,804
B. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
efficiency levels as part of its
analysis.103
1. Economic Impacts on Individual
Consumers
103 Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this
SNOPR are discussed in section IV.C of this
document. Results by efficiency level are presented
in chapters 8, 10, and 12 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6871
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined
the impacts of potential standards on
selected consumer subgroups. These
analyses are discussed in the following
sections.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
In general, higher-efficiency products
affect consumers in two ways: (1)
purchase price increases and (2) annual
operating costs decrease. Inputs used for
calculating the LCC and PBP include
total installed costs (i.e., product price
plus installation costs), and operating
costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy
prices, energy price trends, repair costs,
and maintenance costs). The LCC
calculation also uses product lifetime
and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the
TSD for this SNOPR provides detailed
information on the LCC and PBP
analyses.
Table V.4 through Table V.25 show
the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs
considered for each product class. In the
first of each pair of tables, the simple
payback is measured relative to the
baseline product. In the second table,
impacts are measured relative to the
efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case in the compliance year
(see section IV.F.8 of this document).
Because some consumers purchase
products with higher efficiency in the
no-new-standards case, the average
savings are less than the difference
between the average LCC of the baseline
product and the average LCC at each
TSL. The savings refer only to
consumers who are affected by a
standard at a given TSL. Those who
already purchase a product with
efficiency at or above a given TSL are
not affected. Consumers for whom the
LCC increases at a given TSL experience
a net cost.
TABLE V.4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC OPEN (COIL) ELEMENT COOKING TOPS
Average costs
(2021$)
Efficiency
level
TSL
1–3 .........................................................
First year’s
operating
cost
Installed
cost
Baseline .......
$327
Lifetime
operating
cost
$14
LCC
$334
$661
Simple
payback
(years)
Average
lifetime
(years)
....................
16.8
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level.
TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR ELECTRIC OPEN (COIL) ELEMENT
COOKING TOPS
Life-cycle cost savings
TSL
Efficiency level
Average LCC savings *
(2021$)
Percent of consumers that
experience net cost
1–3 ..........................................................
Baseline ..................................................
$0.00
0
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
TABLE V.6—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC SMOOTH ELEMENT COOKING TOPS
Average costs
(2021$)
Efficiency
level
TSL
1, 2 ........................................................
3 .............................................................
First year’s
operating
cost
Installed
cost
Baseline .......
1 ...................
2 ...................
3 ...................
$552
555
568
1,204
$20
14
13
12
Lifetime
operating
cost
LCC
$408
336
321
314
$960
891
890
1,517
Simple
payback
(years)
....................
0.6
2.5
87.5
Average
lifetime
(years)
16.8
16.8
16.8
16.8
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline product.
TABLE V.7—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR ELECTRIC SMOOTH ELEMENT
COOKING TOPS
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TSL
1, 2 ...................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................
Average LCC savings *
(2021$)
1
3
$13.29
(580.31)
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Percent of consumers that
experience net cost
0
95
6872
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.8—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR GAS COOKING TOPS
Average costs
(2021$)
Efficiency
level
TSL
1 .............................................................
2, 3 ........................................................
First year’s
operating
cost
Installed
cost
Baseline .......
1 ...................
2 ...................
$376
395
395
Lifetime
operating
cost
$16
13
12
LCC
$337
310
292
$713
705
686
Simple
payback
(years)
Average
lifetime
(years)
....................
8.4
5.0
14.5
14.5
14.5
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline product.
TABLE V.9—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR GAS COOKING TOPS
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
TSL
1 .......................................................................................................
2, 3 ...................................................................................................
Average LCC savings *
(2021$)
1
2
Percent of consumers that
experience net cost
$3.88
21.89
27
18
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
TABLE V.10—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC STANDARD OVENS, FREESTANDING
Average costs
(2021$)
Efficiency
level
TSL
1, 2 ........................................................
3 .............................................................
First year’s
operating
cost
Installed
cost
Baseline .......
1 ...................
2 ...................
3 ...................
$652
655
704
755
Lifetime
operating
cost
$23
21
20
17
$482
459
448
405
LCC
$1,134
1,114
1,152
1,160
Simple
payback
(years)
....................
1.7
19.8
17.0
Average
lifetime
(years)
16.8
16.8
16.8
16.8
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline product.
TABLE V.11—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR ELECTRIC STANDARD OVENS,
FREESTANDING
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
TSL
1, 2 ...................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................
Average LCC savings *
(2021$)
1
3
Percent of consumers that
experience net cost
$0.99
(29.92)
0
80
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
TABLE V.12—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC STANDARD OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN
Average costs
(2021$)
Efficiency
level
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TSL
1, 2 ........................................................
3 .............................................................
Installed
cost
Baseline .......
1 ...................
2 ...................
3 ...................
First year’s
operating
cost
$682
685
734
785
$24
22
21
18
Lifetime
operating
cost
$494
472
461
417
LCC
$1,176
1,157
1,195
1,203
Simple
payback
(years)
....................
1.8
20.2
17.2
Average
lifetime
(years)
16.8
16.8
16.8
16.8
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline product.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
6873
TABLE V.13—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR ELECTRIC STANDARD OVENS,
BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
TSL
1, 2 ...................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................
Average LCC savings *
(2021$)
1
3
Percent of consumers that
experience net cost
$0.95
(33.05)
0
81
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
TABLE V.14—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC SELF-CLEAN OVENS, FREESTANDING
Average costs
(2021$)
Efficiency
level
TSL
1, 2 ........................................................
3 .............................................................
First year’s
operating
cost
Installed
cost
Baseline .......
1 ...................
2 ...................
3 ...................
$699
702
751
802
Lifetime
operating
cost
$28
26
26
22
$552
529
518
474
LCC
$1,251
1,231
1,269
1,277
Simple
payback
(years)
....................
1.7
19.8
17.0
Average
lifetime
(years)
16.8
16.8
16.8
16.8
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline product.
TABLE V.15—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR ELECTRIC SELF-CLEAN OVENS,
FREESTANDING
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
TSL
1, 2 ...................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................
Average LCC savings *
(2021$)
1
3
Percent of consumers that
experience net cost
$1.02
(15.31)
0
75
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
TABLE V.16—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC SELF-CLEAN OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN
Average costs
(2021$)
Efficiency
level
TSL
1, 2 ........................................................
3 .............................................................
First year’s
operating
cost
Installed
cost
Baseline .......
1 ...................
2 ...................
3 ...................
$729
732
781
832
$29
27
27
23
Lifetime
operating
cost
$563
540
530
486
LCC
$1,292
1,273
1,311
1,319
Simple
payback
(years)
....................
1.8
20.1
17.2
Average
lifetime
(years)
16.8
16.8
16.8
16.8
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline product.
TABLE V.17—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR ELECTRIC SELF-CLEAN OVENS,
BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TSL
1, 2 ...................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................
Average LCC savings *
(2021$)
1
3
$1.01
(10.84)
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Percent of consumers that
experience net cost
0
72
6874
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.18—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR GAS STANDARD OVENS, FREESTANDING
Average costs
(2021$)
Efficiency
level
TSL
1, 2 ........................................................
3 .............................................................
First year’s
operating
cost
Installed
cost
Baseline .......
1 ...................
2 ...................
$677
681
715
Lifetime
operating
cost
$43
41
40
$684
664
653
LCC
$1,361
1,345
1,367
Simple
payback
(years)
Average
lifetime
(years)
....................
1.9
14.1
14.5
14.5
14.5
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline product.
TABLE V.19—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR GAS STANDARD OVENS,
FREESTANDING
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
TSL
1, 2 ...................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................
Average LCC savings *
(2021$)
1
2
Percent of consumers that
experience net cost
$0.65
(7.56)
1
33
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
TABLE V.20—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR GAS STANDARD OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN
Average costs
(2021$)
Efficiency
level
TSL
1, 2 ....................................................
3 .........................................................
First year’s
operating
cost
Installed
cost
Baseline .......
1 ...................
2 ...................
$707
710
744
Lifetime
operating
cost
$44
42
41
$692
673
662
LCC
$1,399
1,384
1,406
Simple
payback
(years)
....................
2.0
14.4
Average
lifetime
(years)
14.5
14.5
14.5
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline product.
TABLE V.21—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR GAS STANDARD OVENS, BUILTIN/SLIDE-IN
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
TSL
1, 2 ...................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................
Average LCC savings *
(2021$)
1
2
Percent of consumers that
experience net cost
$0.59
(13.37)
1
56
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
TABLE V.22—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR GAS SELF-CLEAN OVENS, FREESTANDING
Average costs
(2021$)
Efficiency
level
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TSL
1, 2 ....................................................
3 .........................................................
Installed
cost
Baseline .......
1 ...................
2 ...................
First year’s
operating
cost
$847
850
884
Lifetime
operating
cost
$44
43
42
$702
683
671
LCC
$1,549
1,532
1,555
Simple
payback
(years)
....................
1.9
14.1
Average
lifetime
(years)
14.5
14.5
14.5
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline product.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6875
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.23—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR GAS SELF-CLEAN OVENS,
FREESTANDING
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
TSL
1, 2 ...................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................
Average LCC savings *
(2021$)
1
2
Percent of consumers that
experience net cost
$0.70
(0.86)
1
6
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
TABLE V.24—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR GAS SELF-CLEAN OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN
Average costs
(2021$)
TSL
Efficiency
level
1, 2 ....................................................
3 .........................................................
First year’s
operating
cost
Installed
cost
Baseline .......
1 ...................
2 ...................
$876
879
913
Lifetime
operating
cost
$45
44
43
$711
692
680
Simple
payback
(years)
LCC
$1,587
1,571
1,594
Average
lifetime
(years)
....................
2.0
14.4
14.5
14.5
14.5
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline product.
TABLE V.25—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR GAS SELF-CLEAN OVENS,
BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
TSL
1, 2 ...................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................
Average LCC savings *
(2021$)
1
2
Percent of consumers that
experience net cost
$0.60
(4.52)
1
20
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In the consumer subgroup analysis,
DOE estimated the impact of the
considered TSLs on low-income
households and senior-only households.
Table V.26 through Table V.36 compare
the average LCC savings and PBP at
each efficiency level for the consumer
subgroups with similar metrics for the
entire consumer sample for each
product class. In most cases, the average
LCC savings and PBP for low-income
households and senior-only households
at the considered efficiency levels are
not substantially different from the
average for all households. Usage data
from RECS 2015 indicate that low-
income households have a similar usage
pattern to all households which leads to
similar results. Senior-only households
were found to use cooking products less
frequently than the general population
resulting in slightly lower savings.
Chapter 11 of the TSD for this SNOPR
presents the complete LCC and PBP
results for the subgroups.
TABLE V.26—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; ELECTRIC
OPEN (COIL) ELEMENT COOKING TOPS
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Low-income
households
Average LCC Savings (2021$) *
TSL 1–3 ................................................................................................................................
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1–3 ................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1–3 ................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1–3 ................................................................................................................................
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
All
households
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
........................
........................
........................
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Senior-only
households
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6876
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.27—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; ELECTRIC
SMOOTH ELEMENT COOKING TOPS
Low-income
households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Senior-only
households
All
households
$13.71
($556.90)
$13.30
($580.13)
$13.29
($580.31)
0.5
82.4
0.6
86.6
0.6
87.5
20%
1%
19%
0%
19%
0%
0%
94%
0%
95%
0%
95%
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
TABLE V.28—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; GAS
COOKING TOPS
Low-income
households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1 ....................................................................................................................................
TSL 2, 3 ................................................................................................................................
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1 ....................................................................................................................................
TSL 2, 3 ................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1 ....................................................................................................................................
TSL 2, 3 ................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1 ....................................................................................................................................
TSL 2, 3 ................................................................................................................................
Senior-only
households
All
households
$3.56
$21.06
$3.65
$21.37
$3.88
$21.89
8.5
5.0
8.6
5.0
8.4
5.0
21%
76%
19%
76%
21%
75%
28%
18%
29%
19%
27%
18%
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
TABLE V.29—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; ELECTRIC
STANDARD OVENS, FREESTANDING
Low-income
households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Senior-only
households
All
households
$1.00
($29.95)
$0.95
($40.40)
$0.99
($29.92)
1.7
17.1
1.8
20.4
1.7
17.0
5%
21%
5%
14%
5%
21%
0%
79%
0%
86%
0%
80%
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE V.30—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; ELECTRIC
STANDARD OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN
Low-income
households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Senior-only
households
All
households
$0.95
($32.96)
$0.86
($43.69)
$0.95
($33.05)
1.8
17.3
1.9
20.6
1.8
17.2
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
6877
TABLE V.30—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; ELECTRIC
STANDARD OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN—Continued
Low-income
households
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Senior-only
households
All
households
5%
20%
5%
13%
5%
20%
0%
80%
0%
87%
0%
81%
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
TABLE V.31—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; ELECTRIC
SELF-CLEAN OVENS, FREESTANDING
Low-income
households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Senior-only
households
All
households
$1.07
($15.42)
$0.99
($24.72)
$1.02
($15.31)
1.7
17.1
1.8
20.4
1.7
17.0
5%
25%
5%
18%
5%
25%
0%
75%
0%
82%
0%
75%
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
TABLE V.32—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; ELECTRIC
SELF-CLEAN OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN
Low-income
households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Senior-only
households
All
households
$0.96
($10.89)
$0.90
($20.02)
$1.01
($10.84)
1.8
17.3
1.9
20.6
1.8
17.2
5%
26%
5%
19%
5%
26%
0%
72%
0%
79%
0%
72%
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
TABLE V.33—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; GAS
STANDARD OVENS, FREESTANDING
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Low-income
households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
All
households
$0.72
($6.77)
$0.56
($8.51)
$0.65
($7.56)
1.7
12.0
2.1
15.7
1.9
14.1
3%
4%
3%
3%
3%
4%
1%
34%
1%
34%
1%
33%
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Senior-only
households
01FEP2
6878
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.34—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; GAS
STANDARD OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN
Low-income
households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Senior-only
households
All
households
$0.74
($11.63)
$0.58
($14.33)
$0.59
($13.37)
1.7
12.3
2.2
16.0
2.0
14.4
4%
6%
3%
5%
3%
6%
1%
56%
1%
57%
1%
56%
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
TABLE V.35—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; GAS SELFCLEAN OVENS, FREESTANDING
Low-income
households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Senior-only
households
All
households
$0.90
($0.60)
$0.64
($1.12)
$0.70
($0.86)
1.7
12.1
2.1
15.7
1.9
14.1
4%
2%
4%
1%
4%
1%
0%
5%
1%
6%
1%
6%
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
TABLE V.36—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; GAS SELFCLEAN OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN
Low-income
households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2 ................................................................................................................................
TSL 3 ....................................................................................................................................
Senior-only
households
All
households
$0.67
($3.58)
$0.50
($4.92)
$0.60
($4.52)
1.7
12.3
2.2
16.0
2.0
14.4
3%
3%
3%
2%
3%
3%
1%
20%
1%
21%
1%
20%
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
In the absence to data specific to each
consumer subgroup, DOE assumed the
efficiency distribution developed for the
reference case analysis (see section
IV.F.8 of this document for details).
However, for gas cooking tops, this
likely overestimates the negative impact
to low-income households that are more
likely to purchase traditional
residential-style gas cooking tops which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
tend to have fewer high output burners
and slimmer grates relative to
commercial-style gas cooking tops.
These households are more likely to
purchase products above the baseline at
EL 1 or EL 2. As both EL 1 and EL 2
have the same installed cost (see Table
V.5), a standard for these consumers
would not lead to an increase in
purchase price and would result in
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
operating cost savings for consumers
that purchase EL 1 in the no-newstandards case and EL 2 in a standards
case.
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
As discussed in section III.F.2 of this
document, EPCA establishes a
rebuttable presumption that an energy
conservation standard is economically
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6879
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
justified if the increased purchase cost
for a product that meets the standard is
less than three times the value of the
first-year energy savings resulting from
the standard. In calculating a rebuttable
presumption payback period for each of
the considered TSLs, DOE used discrete
values, and, as required by EPCA, based
the energy use calculation on the DOE
test procedure for consumer
conventional cooking products. In
contrast, the PBPs presented in section
V.B.1.a of this document were
calculated using distributions that
reflect the range of energy use in the
field.
Table V.37 presents the rebuttablepresumption payback periods for the
considered TSLs for consumer
conventional cooking products. While
DOE examined the rebuttablepresumption criterion, it considered
whether the standard levels considered
for the SNOPR are economically
justified through a more detailed
analysis of the economic impacts of
those levels, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full
range of impacts to the consumer,
manufacturer, Nation, and environment.
The results of that analysis serve as the
basis for DOE to definitively evaluate
the economic justification for a potential
standard level, thereby supporting or
rebutting the results of any preliminary
determination of economic justification.
TABLE V.37—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS
Trial standard level
Product class
1
2
3
years
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops ...............................................................................
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops ......................................................................................
Gas Cooking Tops .......................................................................................................................
Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding .......................................................................................
Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ...................................................................................
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding ....................................................................................
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In .................................................................................
Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding ............................................................................................
Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ........................................................................................
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding ..........................................................................................
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ......................................................................................
n.a.
0.5
6.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
8.5
8.9
8.7
8.9
n.a.
0.5
3.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
8.5
8.9
8.7
8.9
n.a.
66.0
3.8
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
24.4
24.7
24.4
24.7
* The entry ‘‘n.a.’’ means not applicable because the evaluated standard is the baseline.
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
DOE performed an MIA to estimate
the impact of new and amended energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products. The
following section describes the expected
impacts on manufacturers at each
considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the TSD
for this SNOPR explains the analysis in
further detail.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
In this section, DOE provides GRIM
results from the analysis, which
examines changes in the industry that
would result from the analyzed energy
conservation standards. The following
tables summarize the estimated
financial impacts (represented by
changes in INPV) of potential new and
amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products, as well
as the conversion costs that DOE
estimates manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products would
incur at each TSL. To evaluate the range
of cash-flow impacts on the consumer
conventional cooking product industry,
DOE modeled two scenarios using
different assumptions that correspond to
the range of anticipated market
responses to new and amended energy
conservation standards: (1) the
preservation of gross margin scenario
and (2) the preservation of operating
profit scenario.
In the preservation of gross margin
scenario, consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers are able
to maintain their margins (as a
percentage), even as the MPCs of
consumer conventional cooking
products increase due to energy
conservation standards. The same
uniform margin of 17 percent is applied
across all efficiency levels in the
preservation of gross margin.104 In the
preservation of operating profit
scenario, manufacturers are not able to
maintain their original margins of 17
percent, in the standards cases. Instead,
manufacturers are only able to maintain
the same operating profit (in absolute
dollars) in the standards cases as in the
no-new-standards case, despite higher
MPCs.
Each of the modeled scenarios results
in a unique set of cash-flows and
corresponding industry values at each
TSL for consumer conventional cooking
product manufacturers. In the following
discussion, the INPV results refer to the
difference in industry value between the
no-new-standards case and each
standards case resulting from the sum of
discounted cash-flows from 2022
through 2056. To provide perspective
on the short-run cash-flow impact, DOE
includes in the discussion of results a
comparison of free cash flow between
the no-new-standards case and the
standards case at each TSL in the year
before new and amended standards are
required.
DOE presents the range in INPV for
consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers in Table V.38 and Table
V.39.
104 The gross margin percentage of 17 percent is
based on a manufacturer markup of 1.20.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6880
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.38—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS—PRESERVATION
OF GROSS MARGIN SCENARIO
No-newstandards
case
Units
INPV ..................................................
Change in INPV ................................
Product Conversion Costs ................
Capital Conversion Costs .................
Total Conversion Costs ....................
2021$ millions ..................................
2021$ millions ..................................
% ......................................................
2021$ millions ..................................
2021$ millions ..................................
2021$ millions ..................................
Trial standard level *
1
1,607
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
2
1,506
(100.7)
(6.3)
45.5
58.5
104.1
1,456
(150.4)
(9.4)
109.9
73.5
183.4
3
422
(1,185.1)
(73.8)
1,401.6
444.8
1,846.4
* Parentheses indicate negative values. Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding.
TABLE V.39—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS—PRESERVATION
OF OPERATING PROFIT SCENARIO
No-newstandards
case
Units
INPV ..................................................
Change in INPV ................................
Product Conversion Costs ................
Capital Conversion Costs .................
Total Conversion Costs ....................
2021$ millions ..................................
2021$ millions ..................................
% ......................................................
2021$ millions ..................................
2021$ millions ..................................
2021$ millions ..................................
Trial standard level *
1
1,607
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
2
1,502
(105.1)
(6.5)
45.5
58.5
104.1
1,452
(154.8)
(9.6)
109.9
73.5
183.4
3
238
(1,368.6)
(85.2)
1,401.6
444.8
1,846.4
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
* Parentheses indicate negative values. Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding.
At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on
INPV will range from ¥$105.1 million
to ¥$100.7 million, which represents a
change of ¥6.5 percent to ¥6.3.
percent, respectively. At TSL 1, industry
free cash-flow decrease to $90.3 million,
which represents a decrease of
approximately 42.5 percent, compared
to the no-new-standards case value of
$132.9 million in 2026, the year before
the estimated compliance date.
TSL 1 would set the energy
conservation standard at baseline for the
electric open (coil) element cooking top
product class and at EL 1 for all other
product classes. DOE estimates that 100
percent of the electric open (coil)
element cooking top shipments, 80
percent of the electric smooth element
cooking top shipments, 52 percent of
the gas cooking top shipments, 95
percent of the electric oven shipments,
and 96 percent of the gas oven
shipments would already meet or
exceed the efficiency levels required at
TSL 1 in 2027.
At TSL 1, DOE expects consumer
conventional cooking product
manufacturers to incur approximately
$45.5 million in product conversion
costs to redesign all non-compliant
cooking top models and oven models, as
well as to test all (both compliant and
newly redesigned) cooking top models
to DOE’s cooking top test procedure.
Additionally, consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers would
incur approximately $58.5 million in
capital conversion costs to purchase
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
new tooling and equipment necessary to
produce all electric smooth element
cooking top models and all oven models
to use switch-mode power supplies and
to purchase new molds for grates and
burners for gas cooking top models that
would not meet this energy
conservation standard.
At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted
average MPC for consumer conventional
cooking products slightly increases by
0.5 percent relative to the no-newstandards case shipment-weighted
average MPC in 2027. In the
preservation of gross margin scenario,
manufacturers can fully pass on this
slight cost increase. The slight increase
in shipment weighted average MPC is
outweighed by the $104.1 million in
conversion costs, causing a moderately
negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under
the preservation of gross margin
scenario.
Under the preservation of operating
profit scenario, manufacturers earn the
same per-unit operating profit as would
be earned in the no-new-standards case,
but manufacturers do not earn
additional profit from their investments
or higher MPCs. In this scenario, the 0.5
percent shipment weighted average
MPC increase results in a reduction in
the margin after the analyzed
compliance year. This reduction in the
margin and the $104.1 million in
conversion costs incurred by
manufacturers cause a moderately
negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the preservation of operating profit
scenario.
At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on
INPV will range from ¥$154.8 million
to ¥$150.4 million, which represents a
change of ¥9.6 percent to ¥9.4 percent,
respectively. At TSL 2, industry free
cash-flow decrease to $60.7 million,
which represents a decrease of
approximately 72.2 percent, compared
to the no-new-standards case value of
$132.9 million in 2026, the year before
the estimated compliance date.
TSL 2 would set the energy
conservation standard at baseline for the
electric open (coil) element cooking top
product class; at EL 1 for the electric
smooth element cooking top and for all
oven product classes (electric and gas);
and at EL 2 for the gas cooking top
product class, which represents maxtech for this product class. DOE
estimates that 100 percent of the electric
open (coil) element cooking top
shipments, 80 percent of the electric
smooth element cooking top shipments,
4 percent of the gas cooking top
shipments, 95 percent of the electric
oven shipments, and 96 percent of the
gas oven shipments would already meet
or exceed the efficiency levels required
at TSL 2 in 2027.
At TSL 2, DOE expects consumer
conventional cooking product
manufacturers to incur approximately
$109.9 million in product conversion
costs at this TSL. This includes testing
costs and product redesign costs. The
majority of the product conversion costs
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
are for gas cooking top manufacturers to
redesign non-compliant gas cooking top
models to meet this energy conservation
standard, as well as to test all (both
compliant and newly redesigned)
cooking top models to DOE’s cooking
top test procedure. Additionally,
consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers would incur
approximately $73.5 million in capital
conversion costs to purchase new
tooling and equipment necessary to
produce all electric smooth element
cooking top models and all oven models
to use switch-mode power supplies and
to purchase new molds for grates and
burners for gas cooking top models that
would not meet this energy
conservation standard.
At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted
average MPC for consumer conventional
cooking products slightly increases by
0.5 percent relative to the no-newstandards case shipment-weighted
average MPC in 2027. In the
preservation of gross margin scenario,
manufacturers can fully pass on this
slight cost increase. The slight increase
in shipment weighted average MPC is
outweighed by the $183.4 million in
conversion costs, causing a moderately
negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under
the preservation of gross margin
scenario.
Under the preservation of operating
profit scenario, the 0.5 percent shipment
weighted average MPC increase results
in a reduction in the margin after the
analyzed compliance year. This
reduction in the manufacturer markup
and the $183.4 million in conversion
costs incurred by manufacturers cause a
moderately negative change in INPV at
TSL 2 under the preservation of
operating profit scenario.
At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on
INPV will range from ¥$1,368.6 million
to ¥$1,185.1 million, which represents
a change of ¥85.2 percent to ¥73.8
percent, respectively. At TSL 3, industry
free cash-flow decrease to ¥$666.2
million, which represents a decrease of
approximately 799.0 percent, compared
to the no-new-standards case value of
$132.9 million in 2026, the year before
the estimated compliance date.
TSL 3 would set the energy
conservation standard at baseline for the
electric open (coil) element cooking top
product class; at EL 2 for the gas
cooking top product class and for all the
gas oven product classes (standard and
self-clean); and at EL 3 for the electric
smooth element cooking top product
class and for all the electric oven
product classes (standard and selfclean). This represents max-tech for all
product classes. DOE estimates that 100
percent of the electric open (coil)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
element cooking top shipments, 5
percent of the electric smooth element
cooking top shipments, 4 percent of the
gas cooking top shipments, zero percent
of the electric standard oven
(freestanding and built-in) shipments,
zero percent of the electric self-clean
oven (freestanding) shipments, 2
percent of the electric self-clean (builtin) shipments, 62 percent of gas
standard oven (freestanding) shipments,
38 percent of the gas standard oven
(built-in) shipments, 93 percent of the
gas self-clean oven (freestanding)
shipments, and 77 percent of the gas
self-clean (built-in) shipments would
already meet the efficiency levels
required at TSL 3 in 2027.
At TSL 3, DOE expects consumer
conventional cooking product
manufacturers to incur approximately
$1,401.6 million in product conversion
costs at this TSL. This includes testing
costs and product redesign costs. At this
TSL electric smooth element cooking
top manufacturers would have to
completely redesign most of their
electric smooth element cooking top
models to use induction technology.
Electric oven manufacturers would have
to completely redesign all of their
electric oven models to use oven
separators. Additionally, consumer
conventional cooking product
manufacturers would incur
approximately $444.8 million in capital
conversion costs to purchase new
tooling and equipment necessary to
produce the numerous redesigned
cooking top and oven models at this
TSL.
At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted
average MPC for consumer conventional
cooking products significantly increases
by 17.7 percent relative to the no-newstandards case shipment-weighted
average MPC in 2027. In the
preservation of gross margin scenario,
manufacturers can fully pass on this
cost increase. The significant increase in
shipment weighted average MPC is
outweighed by the $1,846.4 million in
conversion costs, causing a significantly
negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under
the preservation of gross margin
scenario.
Under the preservation of operating
profit scenario, the 17.7 percent
shipment weighted average MPC
increase results in a reduction in the
margin after the analyzed compliance
year. This reduction in the margin and
the $1,846.4 million in conversion costs
incurred by manufacturers cause a
significantly negative change in INPV at
TSL 3 under the preservation of
operating profit scenario.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6881
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 nonew-standards case and in each of the
standards cases (i.e., TSLs) during the
analysis period.
Production employees are those who
are directly involved in fabricating and
assembling products within a
manufacturer facility. Workers
performing services that are closely
associated with production operations,
such as materials handling tasks using
forklifts, are included as production
labor, as well as line supervisors.
DOE used the GRIM to calculate the
number of production employees from
labor expenditures. DOE used statistical
data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2019
Annual Survey of Manufacturers
(‘‘ASM’’) and the results of the
engineering analysis to calculate
industry-wide labor expenditures. Labor
expenditures related to product
manufacturing depend on the labor
intensity of the product, the sales
volume, and an assumption that wages
remain fixed in real terms over time.
The total labor expenditures in the
GRIM were then converted to domestic
production employment levels by
dividing production labor expenditures
by the annual payment per production
worker.
Non-production employees account
for those workers that are not directly
engaged in the manufacturing of the
covered products. This could include
sales, human resources, engineering,
and management. DOE estimated nonproduction employment levels by
multiplying the number of consumer
conventional cooking product workers
by a scaling factor. The scaling factor is
calculated by taking the ratio of the total
number of employees, and the total
production workers associated with the
industry NAICS code 335220, which
covers consumer conventional cooking
product manufacturing.
The employment impacts shown in
Table V.40 represent the potential
domestic production employment that
could result following the new and
amended energy conservation
standards. The upper bound of the
results estimates the maximum change
in the number of production workers
that could occur after compliance with
the new and amended energy
conservation standards when assuming
that manufacturers continue to produce
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6882
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the same scope of covered products in
the same production facilities. It also
assumes that domestic production does
not shift to lower labor-cost countries.
Because there is a risk of manufacturers
evaluating sourcing decisions in
response to the new and amended
energy conservation standards, the
lower bound of the employment results
includes DOE’s estimate of the total
number of U.S. production workers in
the industry who could lose their jobs
if some existing domestic production
were moved outside of the United
States. While the results present a range
of domestic employment impacts
following 2027, the following sections
also include qualitative discussions of
the likelihood of negative employment
impacts at the various TSLs.
Using 2019 ASM data and interviews
with manufacturers, DOE estimates that
approximately 60 percent of the
consumer conventional cooking
products sold in the United States are
manufactured domestically. With this
assumption, DOE estimates that in the
absence of new and amended energy
conservation standards, there would be
approximately 4,322 domestic
production workers involved in
manufacturing consumer conventional
cooking products in 2027. Table V.40
shows the range of the impacts of the
new and amended energy conservation
standards on U.S. production workers in
the consumer conventional cooking
product industry.
TABLE V.40—DOMESTIC EMPLOYMENT FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS IN 2027
No-newstandards
case
Domestic Production Workers in 2027 ............................................................
Domestic Non-Production Workers in 2027 ....................................................
Total Direct Employment in 2027 ....................................................................
Potential Changes in Total Direct Employment in 2027 * ...............................
Trial standard level
1
4,322
631
4,953
........................
2
4,343
634
4,977
0–21
3
4,343
634
4,977
0–21
4,880
713
5,593
(1,068)–558
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
* DOE presents a range of potential impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.
At the upper end of the range, all
examined TSLs show an increase in the
number of domestic production workers
for consumer conventional cooking
products. The upper end of the range
represents a scenario where
manufacturers increase production
hiring due to the increase in the labor
associated with adding the required
components to make consumer
conventional cooking products more
efficient. However, as previously stated,
this assumes that in addition to hiring
more production employees, all existing
domestic production would remain in
the United States and not shift to lower
labor-cost countries.
At the lower end of the range, all
examined TSLs show either no change
in domestic production employment or
a decrease in domestic production
employment. The lower end of the
domestic employment range assumes
that gas cooking top domestic
production employment does not
change at any TSL. Manufacturing more
efficient gas cooking tops by optimizing
the burner and improving grates would
not impact the location where
production occurs for this product class.
Additionally, this lower range assumes
that TSLs set at EL 1 for all oven
product classes and the electric smooth
element cooking top product class
would not change the domestic
production employment. EL 1 would
require SMPSs for all oven product
classes and can be achieved using lowstandby-loss electronic controls for the
electric smooth element cooking top
product class. The majority of
manufacturers already use SMPSs in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
their ovens and are able to meet the
efficiency requirements at EL 1 for the
electric smooth element cooking top
product class. Adding these standby
features to models currently not using
these features would not change the
location where production occurs for
these product classes.
At the lower end of the range, DOE
estimated that up to 50 percent of
domestic production employment for
the electric smooth element cooking top
product class could be relocated abroad
at max-tech. Additionally, DOE
estimated that up to 25 percent of
domestic production employment for
the oven product classes could be
relocated abroad at max-tech. DOE
estimates that there would be
approximately 584 domestic production
employees involved in the production
of electric smooth element cooking tops
and 3,102 domestic production
employees involved in the production
covering all oven product classes in
2027 in the no-new-standards case.
Using these values to estimate the lower
end of the range, DOE estimated that up
to 1,068 domestic production employees
could be eliminated at TSL 3 (due to
standards being set at max-tech for the
electric smooth element cooking top
product class and for all oven product
classes).105
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
105 584
PO 00000
× 50% + 3,102 × 25% = 1,067.5.
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
size of most consumer conventional
cooking products, there are few units
that are manufactured and shipped from
far distances such as Asia or Europe.
The vast majority of consumer
conventional cooking products are
currently made in North America. Some
manufacturers stated that even
significant changes to production lines
would not cause them to shift their
production abroad, as several
manufacturers either only produce
consumer conventional cooking
products domestically or have made
significant investments to continue to
produce consumer conventional
cooking products domestically.
DOE requests comment on the
estimated potential domestic
employment impacts on consumer
conventional cooking product
manufacturers presented in this SNOPR.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
Manufacturers stated that any
standard requiring induction heating
technology for electric smooth element
cooking tops would be very difficult to
meet since there are approximately 5
percent of shipments currently using
this technology. Additionally, any
standards requiring oven separators for
the electric oven product classes would
be very difficult to meet since that
would require completely redesigning
the oven cavity of almost every electric
oven model currently on the market.
All other ELs analyzed require making
incremental improvements to existing
designs and should not present any
manufacturing capacity constraints
given the 3-year compliance period
proposed in this SNOPR.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6883
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DOE requests comment on the
potential manufacturing capacity
constraints placed on consumer
conventional cooking product
manufacturers at the TSLs presented in
this SNOPR.
d. Impacts on Subgroups of
Manufacturers
Using average cost assumptions to
develop an industry cash-flow estimate
may not be adequate for assessing
differential impacts among
manufacturer subgroups. Small
manufacturers, niche product
manufacturers, and manufacturers
exhibiting cost structures substantially
different from the industry average
could be affected disproportionately.
DOE analyzed the impacts on small
businesses in section VI.B of this
document. DOE also identified the
commercial-style manufacturer
subgroup as a potential manufacturer
subgroup that could be adversely
impacted by energy conservation
standards based on the results of the
industry characterization.
The commercial-style manufacturer
subgroup consists of consumer
conventional cooking product
manufacturers that primarily sell gas
cooking tops, gas ovens, and electric
self-clean ovens marketed as
commercial-style, either as a standalone product or as a component of a
conventional range. For the cooking top
product classes, while commercial-style
manufacturers do not produce electric
open (coil) element cooking tops, some
commercial-style manufacturers do
produce electric smooth element
cooking tops. Of those commercial-style
manufacturers that do produce electric
smooth element cooking tops, all these
manufacturers have products that use
induction technology and would be able
to meet the max-tech for this product
class.
Commercial-style manufacturers
would likely face more difficulty
meeting potential standards set for the
gas cooking top product class than other
consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers. However, as previously
stated in IV.C.1, all analyzed ELs for the
gas cooking top product class are
achievable with continuous cast-iron
grates and at least one HIR burner.
Therefore, while commercial-style
manufacturers would likely have to
redesign a higher portion of their gas
cooking top models compared to other
consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers, all ELs for the gas
cooking top product class are achievable
for commercial-style manufacturers.
For the oven product classes, the vast
majority of commercial-style electric
and gas ovens already use SMPSs in
their ovens and would not have
difficulty meeting potential standard
levels requiring SMPSs for any oven
product classes. Additionally,
commercial-style manufactures
typically have a higher percentage of gas
oven models that use forced convention
than other consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers.
However, like the rest of the market,
there are very few, if any, commercialstyle electric ovens equipped with an
oven separator and it would be difficult
for commercial-style manufacturers to
convert all of their oven cavities into
ovens equipped with an oven separator.
DOE requests comment on the
potential impacts on commercial-style
manufacturers at the TSLs presented in
this SNOPR.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
One aspect of assessing manufacturer
burden involves looking at the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE
standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal
agencies that affect the manufacturers of
a covered product or equipment. While
any one regulation may not impose a
significant burden on manufacturers,
the combined effects of several existing
or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some
manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the
impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory
burden. In addition to energy
conservation standards, other
regulations can significantly affect
manufacturers’ financial operations.
Multiple regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can strain profits and lead
companies to abandon product lines or
markets with lower expected future
returns than competing products. For
these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis
of cumulative regulatory burden as part
of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency.
DOE evaluates product-specific
regulations that will take effect
approximately 3 years before or after the
estimated 2027 compliance date of any
new and amended energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional
cooking products. This information is
presented in Table V.41.
TABLE V.41—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS AFFECTING CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS
Number of
manufacturers *
Federal energy conservation standard
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Portable Air Conditioners, 85 FR 1378 (Jan. 10, 2020) ....
Room Air Conditioners,† 87 FR 20608 (Apr. 7, 2022) ......
Microwave Ovens,† 87 FR 52282 (Aug. 24, 2022) ...........
Clothes Dryers,† 87 FR 51734 (Aug. 23, 2022) ...............
Number of
manufacturers
affected from
this rule **
11
8
18
15
1
3
10
8
Approx.
standards
year
2025
2026
2026
2027
Industry
conversion
costs
(millions)
$320.9
22.8
46.1
149.7
Industry
conversion
costs/product
revenue ***
(percent)
(2015$)
(2020$)
(2021$)
(2020$)
6.7
0.5
0.7
1.8
* This column presents the total number of manufacturers identified in the energy conservation standard rule contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
** This column presents the number of manufacturers producing consumer conventional cooking products that are also listed as manufacturers
in the listed energy conservation standard contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of product revenue during the conversion period. Industry conversion costs
are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue
from just the covered product/equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs are
made and lasts from the publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the energy conservation standard. The conversion period
typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on the rulemaking.
† Indicates a NOPR publications. Values may change on publication of a Final Rule.
In addition to the rulemaking listed in
Table V.41 DOE has ongoing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
rulemakings for other products or
equipment that consumer conventional
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
cooking product manufacturers
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6884
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
produce, including air cleaners; 106
automatic commercial ice makers; 107
commercial clothes washers; 108
dehumidifiers; 109 miscellaneous
refrigeration products; 110 refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; 111
and residential clothes washers. 112 If
DOE proposes or finalizes any energy
conservation standards for these
products or equipment prior to
finalizing energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional cooking
products, DOE will include the energy
conservation standards for these other
products or equipment as part of the
cumulative regulatory burden for the
consumer conventional cooking
products final rule.
DOE requests information regarding
the impact of cumulative regulatory
burden on manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products
associated with multiple DOE standards
or product-specific regulatory actions of
other Federal agencies.
3. National Impact Analysis
This section presents DOE’s estimates
of the national energy savings and the
NPV of consumer benefits that would
result from each of the TSLs considered
as potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings
attributable to potential amended
standards for consumer conventional
cooking products, DOE compared their
energy consumption under the no-newstandards case to their anticipated
energy consumption under each TSL.
The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of products purchased in
the 30-year period that begins in the
year of anticipated compliance with
amended standards (2027–2056). Table
V.42 presents DOE’s projections of the
national energy savings for each TSL
considered for consumer conventional
cooking products. The savings were
calculated using the approach described
in section IV.H.3 of this document.
TABLE V.42—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS; 30 YEARS
OF SHIPMENTS
[2027–2056]
Trial standard level
1
I
2
I
3
quads
Primary energy ............................................................................................................................
FFC energy ..................................................................................................................................
OMB Circular A–4 113 requires
agencies to present analytical results,
including separate schedules of the
monetized benefits and costs that show
the type and timing of benefits and
costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies
to consider the variability of key
elements underlying the estimates of
benefits and costs. For this rulemaking,
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis
using 9 years, rather than 30 years, of
product shipments. The choice of a 9year period is a proxy for the timeline
in EPCA for the review of certain energy
conservation standards and potential
revision of and compliance with such
revised standards.114 The review
timeframe established in EPCA is
generally not synchronized with the
product lifetime, product manufacturing
cycles, or other factors specific to
consumer conventional cooking
0.26
0.28
0.43
0.46
I
1.39
1.47
I
products. Thus, such results are
presented for informational purposes
only and are not indicative of any
change in DOE’s analytical
methodology. The NES sensitivity
analysis results based on a 9-year
analytical period are presented in Table
V.43. The impacts are counted over the
lifetime of consumer conventional
cooking products purchased in 2027–
2035.
TABLE V.43—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS; 9 YEARS
OF SHIPMENTS
[2027–2035]
Trial standard level
1
I
2
I
3
quads
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Primary energy ............................................................................................................................
FFC energy ..................................................................................................................................
106 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BTSTD-0035.
107 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0022.
108 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BTSTD-0044.
109 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BTSTD-0043.
110 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BTSTD-0039.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
111 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0003.
112 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0014.
113 U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17,
2003. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/
circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed July 11, 2022).
114 Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to
review its standards at least once every 6 years, and
requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after
any new standard is promulgated before
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
0.07
0.08
I
0.12
0.13
I
0.37
0.39
compliance is required, except that in no case may
any new standards be required within 6 years of the
compliance date of the previous standards. While
adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance
period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may
undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year
period and that the 3-year compliance date may
yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis
period may not be appropriate given the variability
that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and
the fact that for some products, the compliance
period is 5 years rather than 3 years.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6885
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs
and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of
the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from the
TSLs considered for consumer
conventional cooking products. In
accordance with OMB’s guidelines on
regulatory analysis,115 DOE calculated
NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3percent real discount rate. Table V.44
shows the consumer NPV results with
impacts counted over the lifetime of
products purchased in 2027–2056.
TABLE V.44—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING
PRODUCTS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2027–2056]
Trial standard level
Discount rate
1
I
2
I
3*
billion 2021$
3 percent ......................................................................................................................................
7 percent ......................................................................................................................................
0.96
0.33 I
1.71
0.65 I
(27.75)
(15.68)
* Negative values denoted in parentheses.
The NPV results based on the
aforementioned 9-year analytical period
are presented in Table V.45. The
impacts are counted over the lifetime of
products purchased in 2027–2035. As
mentioned previously, such results are
presented for informational purposes
only and are not indicative of any
change in DOE’s analytical methodology
or decision criteria.
TABLE V.45—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING
PRODUCTS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2027–2035]
Trial standard level
Discount rate
(percent)
1
I
2
I
3*
billion 2021$
3 ...................................................................................................................................................
7 ...................................................................................................................................................
0.32
0.15 I
0.61
0.31 I
(9.86)
(7.48)
* Negative values denoted in parentheses.
It is estimated that that amended
energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking
products would reduce energy
expenditures for consumers of those
products, with the resulting net savings
being redirected to other forms of
economic activity. These expected shifts
in spending and economic activity
could affect the demand for labor. As
described in section IV.N of this
document, DOE used an input/output
model of the U.S. economy to estimate
indirect employment impacts of the
TSLs that DOE considered. There are
uncertainties involved in projecting
employment impacts, especially
changes in the later years of the
analysis. Therefore, DOE generated
results for near-term timeframes (2027),
where these uncertainties are reduced.
The results suggest that the proposed
standards would be likely to have a
negligible impact on the net demand for
labor in the economy. The net change in
jobs is so small that it would be
imperceptible in national labor statistics
and might be offset by other,
unanticipated effects on employment.
Chapter 16 of the TSD for this SNOPR
115 U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17,
2003. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/
circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed July 11, 2022).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
The previous results reflect the use of
a default trend to estimate the change in
price for consumer conventional
cooking products over the analysis
period (see section IV.F.1 of this
document). DOE also conducted a
sensitivity analysis that considered one
scenario with a lower rate of price
decline than the reference case and one
scenario with a higher rate of price
decline than the reference case. The
results of these alternative cases are
presented in appendix 10C of the TSD
for this SNOPR. In the high-pricedecline case, the NPV of consumer
benefits is higher than in the default
case. In the low-price-decline case, the
NPV of consumer benefits is lower than
in the default case. In each case, net
benefits remain positive.
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
presents detailed results regarding
anticipated indirect employment
impacts.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of
Products
As discussed in section IV.C of this
document, DOE has tentatively
concluded that the standards proposed
in this SNOPR would not lessen the
utility or performance of the consumer
conventional cooking products under
consideration in this rulemaking.
Manufacturers of these products
currently offer units that meet or exceed
the proposed standards.
AHAM stated that the introduction of
any new standards could have a
significant impact on the utility of
cooking products by, for example,
potentially lowering burner input rates
or requiring changes that would result
in less sturdy grates. (AHAM, No. 84 at
p. 4)
As discuss in section IV.C of this
document, when evaluating higher ELs
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6886
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
for gas cooking tops, DOE ensured that
all potential standard levels would
maintain the ability for cooking tops to
offer at least one HIR burner and
continuous cast-iron grates.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
DOE considered any lessening of
competition that would be likely to
result from new or amended standards.
As discussed in section III.F.1.e of this
document, the Attorney General
determines the impact, if any, of any
lessening of competition likely to result
from a proposed standard, and transmits
such determination in writing to the
Secretary, together with an analysis of
the nature and extent of such impact. To
assist the Attorney General in making
this determination, DOE has provided
DOJ with copies of this SNOPR and the
accompanying TSD for review. DOE will
consider DOJ’s comments on the
proposed rule in determining whether
to proceed to a final rule. DOE will
publish and respond to DOJ’s comments
in that document.
As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD
for this SNOPR, DOE estimates that
there are approximately 34
manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products
supplying the domestic market, and that
three major manufacturers represent
roughly 85 percent of the market. The
major manufacturers offer a full array of
appliances under multiple brands at a
range of price points. Other
manufacturers offer a much more
limited set of products that are focused
on the higher end premium products or
other consumer niches.
The consumer conventional cooking
product market can be divided into
three sub-markets: a smaller entry level
‘‘value’’ consumer conventional cooking
product market; a mass-market
consumer conventional cooking product
market; and a premium commercialstyle consumer conventional cooking
product market. The smaller entry level
consumer conventional cooking product
market typically consists of ovens,
cooking tops, and ranges that have a
width of 30’’ or less. These products
typically compete on price, as
consumers that purchase these products
are price sensitive. The mass-market
consumer conventional cooking product
market makes up the vast majority of the
consumer conventional cooking product
market. These are ovens, cooking tops,
and ranges that are sold in big box retail
stores and larger internet retailers. The
premium commercial-style consumer
conventional cooking product market
typically consists of ovens, cooking
tops, and ranges, that have a width of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
30’’ or larger that have gas cooking tops,
gas ovens, or electric self-clean ovens
marketed as commercial-style, either as
a stand-alone product or as a component
of a conventional range. These products
typically do compete on brand and
features as well as price and are
significantly more expensive than the
mass-produced consumer conventional
cooking products.
As discussed in section III.C of this
document, there is currently no test
procedure for conventional ovens and
efficiency gains can be obtained from
product redesigns of design
improvements at low incremental
manufacturing costs.
For products sold in all three
consumer conventional cooking product
sub-markets, meeting energy
conservation standards for consumer
conventional ovens set at EL 1 (TSL 1
and TSL 2) would not present a
significant challenge for any consumer
conventional cooking product
manufacturer. Based on the shipments
analysis used in the NIA, DOE estimates
that approximately 95 percent of ovens
will meet or exceed EL 1 by the
estimated compliance date. The
remaining five percent of the market
would need to purchase switch-mode
power supplies to be used in their
consumer conventional ovens. Switchmode power supplies are widely used
and readily available and constitute a
minor increase in production costs for
the consumer conventional ovens that
do not currently use switch-mode power
supplies.
As discussed in section III.C of this
document, although there is a new test
procedure for conventional cooking
tops, there is no current performance
standard. As a result, conventional
cooking top design may not be
optimized to the IAEC metric and
efficiency gains can be obtained from
product redesigns at low incremental
manufacturing costs.
Regarding standards for consumer
conventional cooking tops, the majority
of smaller entry level ‘‘value’’ consumer
conventional cooking products would
not be significantly impacted by any
energy conservation standards set below
max-tech for consumer conventional
cooking tops. The majority of consumer
conventional cooking tops sold in the
smaller entry level ‘‘value’’ consumer
conventional cooking product market
either have electric open (coil) element
cooking tops or gas-cooking tops with
thinner non-continuous grates. DOE is
only considering a baseline efficiency
level for electric open (coil) element
cooking tops that can be meet by all
products. Gas cooking tops with thinner
non-continuous grates typically are at
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
max-tech. It is unlikely that many gas
cooking tops sold in the smaller entry
level ‘‘value’’ consumer conventional
cooking product market would have to
redesign their products to meet
standards set at any efficiency level.
For the mass-market consumer
conventional cooking product market,
most electric smooth element cooking
tops will meet or exceed standards set
at EL 1 (TSL 1 and TSL 2). The majority
of electric smooth element cooking tops
that are at baseline, EL 1, and EL 2 (i.e.,
not the electric smooth cooking tops
that use induction technology, which
are electric smooth element cooking
tops meting max-tech) are sold in the
mass-market consumer conventional
cooking product market. Based on the
shipments analysis used in the NIA,
DOE estimates that approximately 80
percent of electric smooth element
cooking tops will meet or exceed EL 1
by the estimated compliance date.
Most of the gas cooking top products
sold in the mass-market consumer
conventional cooking product market
would have to be redesigned to meet
standards set at max-tech (TSL 2 and
TSL 3). Based on the shipments analysis
used in the NIA, DOE estimates that
approximately 96 percent of gas cooking
tops will need to be redesigned to meet
standards set at max-tech by the
estimated compliance date.
The premium commercial-style
consumer conventional cooking product
market typically uses either electric
cooking tops that use induction
technology and are at max-tech for the
electric smooth element cooking top
product class or gas cooking tops. All
electric smooth element cooking tops
using induction technology would be
able to meet standards set at max-tech
for the electric smooth element product
class. Premium commercial-style
manufacturers would likely face more
difficulty meeting potential standards
set for the gas cooking top product class
than other consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers.
However, as previously stated in section
IV.C.1 of this document, all analyzed
ELs for the gas cooking top product
class are achievable with continuous
cast-iron grates and at least one HIR
burner. Therefore, while commercialstyle manufacturers would likely have
to redesign a higher portion of their gas
cooking top models compared to other
consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers, all ELs for the gas
cooking top product class are achievable
for commercial-style manufacturers.
Additionally, premium commercialstyle consumer conventional cooking
products typically are not as cost
sensitive as the other consumer
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6887
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
conventional cooking product markets.
Premium commercial-style consumer
conventional cooking product typically
sell for more than twice the cost of
mass-market consumer conventional
cooking products. DOE anticipates that
premium commercial-style consumer
conventional cooking product
manufacturers are more likely to be able
to pass on cost increases to their
customers than the other consumer
conventional cooking product markets.
Overall, DOE does not anticipate that
energy conservation standards set at
TSL 1 or TSL 2 would significantly alter
the current market structure that
consumer conventional cooking
products are currently sold.
DOE does not expect the proposed
rule to increase the concentration in an
already concentrated market. DOE
understands that barriers to entry or
expansion associated with
manufacturing and selling cooking
products is high particularly in the
mass-market segment. The cost of
developing brand recognition; achieving
manufacturing scale to lower
production costs; and developing a
distribution network, are all significant
challenges. The industry has responded
by segmenting the market into more
focused markets that allow
differentiation and competition on
factors other than price. For the reasons
described in this section, the proposed
rule likely would not alter the
competitive balance or market structure
of the consumer conventional cooking
product industry.
DOE invites comment from the public
regarding the competitive impacts that
are likely to result from this proposed
rule. In addition, stakeholders may also
provide comments separately to DOJ
regarding these potential impacts. See
the ADDRESSES section for information
to send comments to DOJ.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve
Energy
Enhanced energy efficiency, where
economically justified, improves the
Nation’s energy security, strengthens the
economy, and reduces the
environmental impacts (costs) of energy
production.
DOE seeks comment on the potential
impacts on energy security as a result of
amended standards for cooking
products, which reduce the use of
natural gas as a result of more-efficient
cooking appliances.
Reduced in-home gas combustion
may deliver additional health benefits to
consumers and their families by
reducing exposure to various pollutants.
Reduced electricity demand due to
energy conservation standards is also
likely to reduce the cost of maintaining
the reliability of the electricity system,
particularly during peak-load periods.
Chapter 15 in the TSD for this SNOPR
presents the estimated impacts on
electricity generating capacity, relative
to the no-new-standards case, for the
TSLs that DOE considered in this
rulemaking.
Energy conservation resulting from
potential energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional cooking
products is expected to yield
environmental benefits in the form of
reduced emissions of certain air
pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table
V.46 provides DOE’s estimate of
cumulative emissions reductions
expected to result from the TSLs
considered in this rulemaking. The
emissions were calculated using the
multipliers discussed in section IV.K of
this document. DOE reports annual
emissions reductions for each TSL in
chapter 13 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
TABLE V.46—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN
2027–2056
Trial standard level
1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Power Sector Emissions:
CO2 (million metric tons) ......................................................................................................
CH4 (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................
N2O (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................
SO2 (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................
NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................
Hg (tons) ...............................................................................................................................
Upstream Emissions:
CO2 (million metric tons) ......................................................................................................
CH4 (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................
N2O (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................
SO2 (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................
NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................
Hg (tons) ...............................................................................................................................
Total FFC Emissions:
CO2 (million metric tons) ......................................................................................................
CH4 (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................
N2O (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................
SO2 (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................
NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................
Hg (tons) ...............................................................................................................................
As part of the analysis for this
rulemaking, DOE estimated monetary
benefits likely to result from the
reduced emissions of CO2 that DOE
estimated for each of the considered
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
TSLs for consumer conventional
cooking products. Section IV.L of this
document discusses the SC–CO2 values
that DOE used. Table V.47 presents the
value of CO2 emissions reduction at
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2
3
10.7
0.5
0.1
2.2
7.7
0.01
19.6
0.7
0.1
2.2
15.5
0.01
50.7
3.0
0.4
16.6
31.3
0.11
1.2
120.6
0.0
0.0
18.1
0.00
2.3
244.2
0.0
0.0
36.3
0.00
4.8
479.2
0.0
0.2
73.7
0.00
11.9
121.1
0.1
2.2
25.9
0.01
21.9
244.9
0.1
2.2
51.8
0.01
55.5
482.2
0.4
16.7
105.0
0.11
each TSL for each of the SC–CO2 cases.
The time-series of annual values is
presented for the proposed TSL in
chapter 14 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6888
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.47—PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS
SHIPPED IN 2027–2056
SC–CO2 case
Discount rate and statistics
TSL
5%
3%
2.5%
3%
Average
Average
Average
95th percentile
million 2021$
1 .......................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................
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
105.2
194.3
488.9
considered TSLs for consumer
conventional cooking products. Table
V.48 presents the value of the CH4
emissions reduction at each TSL, and
Table V.49 presents the value of the N2O
464.5
856.8
2,160.9
731.9
1,349.7
3,405.9
1,409.9
2,601.2
6,558.5
emissions reduction at each TSL. The
time-series of annual values is presented
for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of
the TSD for this SNOPR.
TABLE V.48—PRESENT VALUE OF METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING
PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2027–2056
SC–CH4 case
Discount rate and statistics
TSL
5%
3%
2.5%
3%
Average
Average
Average
95th percentile
million 2021$
1 .......................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................
49.8
101.1
197.1
152.5
309.0
606.1
214.2
433.8
851.8
403.4
817.4
1,603.2
TABLE V.49—PRESENT VALUE OF NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING
PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2027–2056
SC–N2O case
Discount rate and statistics
TSL
5%
3%
2.5%
3%
Average
Average
Average
95th percentile
million 2021$
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1 .......................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
0.21
0.28
1.42
review will consider the comments on
this subject that are part of the public
record for this and other rulemakings, as
well as other methodological
assumptions and issues. DOE notes that
the proposed standards would be
economically justified even without
inclusion of monetized benefits of
reduced GHG emissions.
DOE also estimated the monetary
value of the health benefits associated
with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
0.89
1.17
5.84
1.38
1.83
9.13
2.36
3.11
15.57
anticipated to result from the
considered TSLs for consumer
conventional cooking products. The
dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are
discussed in section IV.L of this
document. Table V.50 presents the
present value for NOX emissions
reduction for each TSL calculated using
7-percent and 3-percent discount rates,
and Table V.51 presents similar results
for SO2 emissions reductions. The
results in these tables reflect application
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6889
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
of EPA’s low dollar-per-ton values,
which DOE used to be conservative. The
time-series of annual values is presented
for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of
the TSD for this SNOPR.
TABLE V.50—PRESENT VALUE OF NO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS
SHIPPED IN 2027–2056
3% Discount
rate
TSL
7% Discount
rate
million 2021$
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................................
793.7
1,521.9
3,482.5
297.5
572.9
1,299.7
TABLE V.51—PRESENT VALUE OF SO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS
SHIPPED IN 2027–2056
3% Discount
rate
TSL
7% Discount
rate
million 2021$
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................................
DOE has not considered the monetary
benefits of the reduction of Hg for this
proposed rule. DOE has also not
quantitatively assessed the health
benefits of reducing in-home exposure
to particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide,
and other hazardous air pollutants.
Such in-home emissions may be
associated with a variety of serious
respiratory and cardiovascular
conditions and other health risks. Not
all the public health and environmental
benefits from the reduction of
greenhouse gases, NOX, and SO2 are
captured in the values above, and
additional unquantified benefits from
the reductions of those pollutants as
well as from the reduction of Hg, direct
PM, and other co-pollutants may be
significant. For example, studies have
indicated that gas ranges, particularly
when used without venting systems, can
expose household members to indoor
air pollution at levels that exceed
health-based guidelines.
DOE seeks comment on any impacts
of its proposals in this SNOPR on
indoor air pollutants released by gas
cooking products, as well as any other
design approaches, control strategies, or
other measures to mitigate these
emissions.
7. Other Factors
The Secretary of Energy, in
determining whether a standard is
economically justified, may consider
any other factors that the Secretary
deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors
were considered in this analysis.
109.0
111.0
842.8
41.1
41.9
319.0
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
Table V.52 presents the NPV values
that result from adding the estimates of
the potential economic benefits
resulting from reduced GHG, NOX and
SO2 emissions to the NPV of consumer
benefits calculated for each TSL
considered in this rulemaking. The
consumer benefits are domestic U.S.
monetary savings that occur as a result
of purchasing the covered products, and
are measured for the lifetime of
products shipped in 2027–2056. The
climate benefits associated with reduced
GHG emissions resulting from the
adopted standards are global benefits
and are also calculated based on the
lifetime of consumer conventional
cooking products shipped in 2027–
2056.
TABLE V.52—CONSUMER NPV COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF CLIMATE BENEFITS AND HEALTH BENEFITS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3 *
3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$)
5% Average SC–GHG case ........................................................................................................
3% Average SC–GHG case ........................................................................................................
2.5% Average SC–GHG case .....................................................................................................
3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case ..............................................................................................
2.02
2.49
2.81
3.68
3.64
4.51
5.13
6.77
(22.74)
(20.65)
(19.16)
(15.25)
1.56
2.43
3.05
4.68
(13.37)
(11.29)
(9.79)
(5.88)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$)
5% Average SC–GHG case ........................................................................................................
3% Average SC–GHG case ........................................................................................................
2.5% Average SC–GHG case .....................................................................................................
3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case ..............................................................................................
0.82
1.28
1.61
2.48
* Negative values denoted in parentheses.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6890
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
C. Conclusion
When considering new or amended
energy conservation standards, the
standards that DOE adopts for any type
(or class) of covered product must be
designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that
the Secretary determines is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a
standard is economically justified, the
Secretary must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens by, to the greatest extent
practicable, considering the seven
statutory factors discussed previously.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or
amended standard must also result in
significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
For this SNOPR, DOE considered the
impacts of new and amended standards
for consumer conventional cooking
products at each TSL, beginning with
the maximum technologically feasible
level, to determine whether that level
was economically justified. Where the
max-tech level was not justified, DOE
then considered the next most efficient
level and undertook the same evaluation
until it reached the highest efficiency
level that is both technologically
feasible and economically justified and
saves a significant amount of energy.
DOE refers to this process at the ‘‘walkdown’’ analysis.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses
the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL,
tables in this section present a summary
of the results of DOE’s quantitative
analysis for each TSL. In addition to the
quantitative results presented in the
tables, DOE also considers other
burdens and benefits that affect
economic justification. These include
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of
consumers who may be
disproportionately affected by a national
standard and impacts on employment.
DOE also notes that the economics
literature provides a wide-ranging
discussion of how consumers trade off
upfront costs and energy savings in the
absence of government intervention.
Much of this literature attempts to
explain why consumers appear to
undervalue energy efficiency
improvements. There is evidence that
consumers undervalue future energy
savings as a result of (1) a lack of
information or informational
asymmetries, (2) a lack of sufficient
salience of the long-term or aggregate
benefits, (3) a lack of sufficient personal
financial savings to warrant delaying or
altering purchases, (4) excessive focus
on the short term, in the form of
inconsistent weighting of future energy
cost savings relative to available returns
on other investments, due to loss
aversion, myopia, inattention, or other
factors, (5) computational or other
difficulties associated with the
evaluation of relevant tradeoffs, and (6)
a divergence in incentives (for example,
between renters and owners, or builders
and purchasers, or between current and
subsequent owners). Having less than
perfect foresight and a high degree of
uncertainty about the future, consumers
may trade off these types of investments
at a higher-than-expected rate between
current consumption and uncertain
future energy cost savings.
In DOE’s current regulatory analysis,
potential changes in the benefits and
costs of a regulation due to changes in
consumer purchase decisions are
included in two ways. First, if
consumers forego the purchase of a
product in the standards case, this
decreases sales for product
manufacturers, and the impact on
manufacturers attributed to lost revenue
is included in the MIA. Second, DOE
accounts for energy savings attributable
only to products actually used by
consumers in the standards case; if a
standard decreases the number of
products purchased by consumers, this
decreases the potential energy savings
from an energy conservation standard.
DOE provides estimates of shipments
and changes in the volume of product
purchases in chapter 9 of the TSD for
this SNOPR. However, DOE’s current
analysis does not explicitly control for
heterogeneity in consumer preferences,
preferences across subcategories of
products or specific features, or
consumer price sensitivity variation
according to household income.116
While DOE is not prepared at present
to provide a fuller quantifiable
framework for estimating the benefits
and costs of changes in consumer
purchase decisions due to an energy
conservation standard, DOE is
committed to developing a framework
that can support empirical quantitative
tools for improved assessment of the
consumer welfare impacts of appliance
standards. DOE has posted a paper that
discusses the issue of consumer welfare
impacts of appliance energy
conservation standards, and potential
enhancements to the methodology by
which these impacts are defined and
estimated in the regulatory process.117
DOE welcomes data submissions and
comments that will provide for a fuller
assessment of the potential impact of
energy conservation standards on
consumer choice and how to quantify
this impact in its regulatory analysis in
future rulemakings.
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for Consumer Conventional
Cooking Products Standards
Table V.53 and Table V.54 summarize
the quantitative impacts estimated for
each TSL for consumer conventional
cooking products. The national impacts
are measured over the lifetime of
consumer conventional cooking
products purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the anticipated
year of compliance with amended
standards (2027–2056). The energy
savings, emissions reductions, and
value of emissions reductions refer to
full-fuel-cycle results. DOE is presenting
monetized benefits in accordance with
the applicable Executive Orders and
DOE would reach the same conclusion
presented in this notice in the absence
of the social cost of greenhouse gases,
including the Interim Estimates
presented by the Interagency Working
Group. The efficiency levels contained
in each TSL are described in section
V.A of this document.
TABLE V.53—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS TSLS: NATIONAL
IMPACTS
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Category
TSL 1
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings:
Quads ...................................................................................................................................
CO2 (million metric tons) ......................................................................................................
116 P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household
Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic
Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853–883. doi: 10.1111/
0034–6527.00354.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
117 Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of
Household Energy Consumption and Technology
Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
TSL 2
0.28
11.9
TSL 3
0.46
21.9
1.47
55.5
appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf
(last accessed June 28, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
6891
TABLE V.53—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS TSLS: NATIONAL
IMPACTS—Continued
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
CH4 (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................
N2O (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................
SO2 (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................
NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................
Hg (tons) ...............................................................................................................................
Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2021$):
Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................................................
Climate Benefits * .................................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** ..................................................................................................................
Total Benefits † ..............................................................................................................
121.1
0.1
2.2
25.9
0.01
244.9
0.1
2.2
51.8
0.01
482.2
0.4
16.7
105.0
0.11
1.53
0.62
0.90
3.05
2.28
1.17
1.63
5.08
8.02
2.77
4.33
15.12
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ...............................................................................
0.56
0.56
35.77
Consumer Net Benefits *** ...................................................................................................
Total Net Benefits *** .....................................................................................................
Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2021$):
Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................................................
Climate Benefits* ..................................................................................................................
Health Benefits** ..................................................................................................................
Total Benefits† ..............................................................................................................
0.96
2.49
1.71
4.51
(27.75)
(20.65)
0.63
0.62
0.34
1.59
0.95
1.17
0.61
2.74
3.17
2.77
1.62
7.56
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ...............................................................................
0.31
0.31
18.85
Consumer Net Benefits*** ....................................................................................................
Total Net Monetized Benefits*** ....................................................................................
0.33
1.28
0.65
2.43
(15.68)
(11.29)
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 2027–2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027–2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC–CO2, SC–CH4 and SC–N2O. Together, these represent the global
SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22–30087) granted the Federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost
of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to
monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction
and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as
health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
*** Negative values denoted in parentheses.
† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent
and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central
SC–GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
TABLE V.54—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS TSLS:
MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Category
TSL 1
Manufacturer Impacts:
Industry NPV (million 2021$) (No-new-standards case INPV = 1,607) ...............................
Industry NPV (% change) .....................................................................................................
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021$):
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops ........................................................................
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops ..............................................................................
Gas Cooking Tops ................................................................................................................
Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding ...............................................................................
Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................................................
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding .............................................................................
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ..........................................................................
Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding .....................................................................................
Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In .................................................................................
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding ..................................................................................
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ...............................................................................
Shipment-Weighted Average * ..............................................................................................
Consumer Simple PBP (years):
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops ........................................................................
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops ..............................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
TSL 2
TSL 3
1,502–1,506
(6.5)–(6.3)
1,452–1,456
(9.6)–(9.4)
238–422
(85.2)–(73.8)
$0.00
$13.29
$3.88
$0.99
$0.95
$1.02
$1.01
$0.65
$0.59
$0.70
$0.60
$3.19
$0.00
$13.29
$21.89
$0.99
$0.95
$1.02
$1.01
$0.65
$0.59
$0.70
$0.60
$6.75
$0.00
($580.31)
$21.89
($29.92)
($33.05)
($15.31)
($10.84)
($7.56)
($13.37)
($0.86)
($4.52)
($87.60)
n.a.
0.6
n.a.
0.6
n.a.
87.5
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6892
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.54—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS TSLS:
MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS—Continued
Category
TSL 1
Gas Cooking Tops ................................................................................................................
Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding ...............................................................................
Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................................................
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding .............................................................................
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ..........................................................................
Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding .....................................................................................
Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In .................................................................................
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding ..................................................................................
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ...............................................................................
Shipment-Weighted Average * ..............................................................................................
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost:
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops ........................................................................
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops ..............................................................................
Gas Cooking Tops ................................................................................................................
Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding ...............................................................................
Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................................................
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding .............................................................................
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ..........................................................................
Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding .....................................................................................
Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In .................................................................................
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding ..................................................................................
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ...............................................................................
Shipment-Weighted Average * ..............................................................................................
TSL 2
TSL 3
8.4
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.7
5.0
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.0
5.0
17.0
17.2
17.0
17.2
14.1
14.4
14.1
14.4
22.4
0%
0%
27%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
6%
0%
0%
18%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
4%
0%
95%
18%
80%
81%
75%
72%
33%
56%
6%
20%
48%
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. The entry ‘‘n.a.’’ means not applicable the evaluated standard is the baseline.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027.
DOE first considered TSL 3, which
represents the max-tech efficiency levels
for all product classes except for electric
open (coil) element cooking tops, for
which the only considered efficiency
level is the baseline. TSL 3 would save
an estimated 1.47 quads of energy, an
amount DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer
benefit would decrease compared to the
no-new-standards case by $15.68 billion
using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
by $27.75 billion using a discount rate
of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 3 are 55.5 Mt of CO2, 16.7
thousand tons of SO2, 105.0 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.11 tons of Hg, 482.2
thousand tons of CH4, and 0.4 thousand
tons of N2O. The estimated monetary
value of the climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions (associated
with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent
discount rate) at TSL 3 is $2.77 billion.
The estimated monetary value of the
health benefits from reduced SO2 and
NOX emissions at TSL 3 is $1.62 billion
using a 7-percent discount rate and
$4.33 billion using a 3-percent discount
rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs, health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
total NPV at TSL 3 is $11.29 billion less
than the no-new-standards case. Using a
3-percent discount rate for all benefits
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
and costs, the estimated total NPV at
TSL 3 is $20.65 billion less than the nonew-standards case. The estimated total
NPV is provided for additional
information. However, DOE primarily
relies upon the NPV of consumer
benefits when determining whether a
proposed standard level is economically
justified.
At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is
a savings of $22 for gas cooking tops and
an average LCC loss of $580 for electric
smooth element cooking tops, $30 for
freestanding electric standard ovens,
$33 for built-in/slide-in electric
standard ovens, $15 for freestanding
electric self-clean ovens, $11 for builtin/slide-in electric self-clean ovens, $8
for freestanding gas standard ovens, $13
for built-in/slide-in gas standard ovens,
$1 for freestanding gas self-clean ovens,
and $5 for built-in/slide-in gas self-clean
ovens. The simple payback period is
87.5 years for electric smooth element
cooking tops, 5.0 years for gas cooking
tops, 17.0 years for freestanding electric
ovens, 17.2 years for built-in/slide-in
electric ovens, 14.1 years for
freestanding gas ovens, and 14.4 years
for built-in/slide-in gas ovens. The
fraction of consumers experiencing a net
LCC cost is 95 percent for electric
smooth element cooking tops, 18
percent for gas cooking tops, 80 percent
for freestanding electric standard ovens,
81 percent for built-in/slide-in electric
standard ovens, 75 percent for
freestanding electric self-clean ovens, 72
percent for built-in/slide-in electric self-
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
clean ovens, 33 percent for freestanding
gas standard ovens, 56 percent for builtin/slide-in gas standard ovens, 6 percent
for freestanding gas self-clean ovens,
and 20 percent for built-in/slide-in gas
self-clean ovens. At TSL 3, the proposed
standard for electric open (coil) element
cooking tops is at the baseline resulting
in no LCC impact, an undefined PBP,
and no consumers experiencing a net
LCC cost.
At TSL 3, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $1,368.6
million to a decrease of $1,185.1
million, which corresponds to decreases
of 85.2 percent and 73.8 percent,
respectively. DOE estimates that
industry must invest $1,846.4 million to
comply with standards set at TSL 3.
DOE estimates that 100 percent of the
electric open (coil) element cooking top
shipments, 5 percent of the electric
smooth element cooking top shipments,
4 percent of the gas cooking top
shipments, zero percent of the electric
standard oven (freestanding and builtin) shipments, zero percent of the
electric self-clean oven (freestanding)
shipments, 2 percent of the electric selfclean (built-in) shipments, 62 percent of
gas standard oven (freestanding)
shipments, 38 percent of the gas
standard oven (built-in) shipments, 93
percent of the gas self-clean oven
(freestanding) shipments, and 77
percent of the gas self-clean (built-in)
shipments would already meet the
efficiency levels required at TSL 3 in
2027.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
The Secretary tentatively concludes
that at TSL 3 for consumer conventional
cooking products, the benefits of energy
savings, emission reductions, and the
estimated monetary value of the
emissions reductions would be
outweighed by the negative NPV of
consumer benefits, the economic burden
on many consumers (e.g., negative LCC
savings across all product classes except
gas cooking tops), and the significant
impacts on manufacturers, including the
large conversion costs and the
significant reduction in INPV. A
significant fraction of electric smooth
element cooking top, electric oven, and
gas standard oven consumers would
experience a net LCC cost and negative
LCC savings. The consumer NPV is
negative at both 3 and 7 percent. The
potential reduction in INPV could be as
high as 85.2 percent. Consequently, the
Secretary has tentatively concluded that
TSL 3 is not economically justified as a
whole, and in particular for all product
classes except for gas cooking tops. DOE
notes that for gas cooking tops, the only
product class with positive LCC savings,
the same EL (2) is carried forward to
TSL 2.
DOE then considered TSL 2, which
represents the baseline efficiency for
electric open (coil) element cooking
tops, efficiency level 1 for electric
smooth element cooking tops, electric
ovens, and gas ovens, and efficiency
level 2 for gas cooking tops. TSL 2
would save an estimated 0.46 quads of
energy, an amount DOE considers
significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of
consumer benefit would be $0.65 billion
using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
$1.71 billion using a discount rate of 3
percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 2 are 21.9 Mt of CO2, 2.2
thousand tons of SO2, 51.8 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 244.9
thousand tons of CH4, and 0.1 thousand
tons of N2O. The estimated monetary
value of the climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions (associated
with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent
discount rate) at TSL 2 is $1.17 billion.
The estimated monetary value of the
health benefits from reduced SO2 and
NOX emissions at TSL 2 is $0.61 billion
using a 7-percent discount rate and
$1.63 billion using a 3-percent discount
rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs, health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
total NPV at TSL 2 is $2.43 billion.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated total
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
NPV at TSL 2 is $4.51 billion. The
estimated total NPV is provided for
additional information, however DOE
primarily relies upon the NPV of
consumer benefits when determining
whether a proposed standard level is
economically justified.
At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is
a savings of $13 for electric smooth
element cooking tops, $22 for gas
cooking tops, $1 for electric ovens, and
$1 for gas ovens. The simple payback
period is 0.6 years for electric smooth
element cooking tops, 5.0 years for gas
cooking tops, 1.7 years for freestanding
electric ovens, 1.8 years for built-in/
slide-in electric ovens, 1.9 years for
freestanding gas ovens, and 2.0 years for
built-in/slide-in gas ovens. The fraction
of consumers that experience a net LCC
cost is 0 percent for electric smooth
element cooking tops, 18 percent for gas
cooking tops, 0 percent for electric
ovens, and 1 percent for gas ovens. At
TSL 2, the proposed standard for
electric open (coil) element cooking tops
is at the baseline resulting in no LCC
impact, an undefined PBP, and no
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost.
At TSL 2, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $154.8
million to a decrease of $150.4 million,
which correspond to decreases of 9.6
percent and 9.4 percent, respectively.
DOE estimates that industry must invest
$183.4 million to comply with
standards set at TSL 2. DOE estimates
that 100 percent of the electric open
(coil) element cooking top shipments,
80 percent of the electric smooth
element cooking top shipments, 4
percent of the gas cooking top
shipments, 95 percent of the electric
oven shipments, and 96 percent of the
gas oven shipments would already meet
or exceed the efficiency levels required
at TSL 2 in 2027.
After considering the analysis and
weighing the benefits and burdens, the
Secretary has tentatively concluded that
at a standard set at TSL 2 for consumer
conventional cooking products would
be economically justified for all product
classes. At this TSL, the average LCC
savings for all conventional cooking
product classes is positive. A shipmentweighted 4 percent of conventional
cooking product consumers experience
a net cost, with the highest in any single
product class being 18 percent for gas
cooking tops; the percent net cost for all
other product classes is between 0 to 1
percent. The FFC national energy
savings are significant and the NPV of
consumer benefits is positive using both
a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate.
Notably, the benefits to consumers
vastly outweigh the cost to
manufacturers. At TSL 2, the NPV of
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6893
consumer benefits, even measured at the
more conservative discount rate of 7
percent is over 4 times higher than the
maximum estimated manufacturers’ loss
in INPV. The standard levels at TSL 2
are economically justified even without
weighing the estimated monetary value
of emissions reductions. When those
emissions reductions are included—
representing $1.17 billion in climate
benefits (associated with the average
SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate),
and $1.63 billion (using a 3-percent
discount rate) or $0.61 billion (using a
7-percent discount rate) in health
benefits—the rationale becomes stronger
still.
As stated, DOE conducts the walkdown analysis to determine the TSL that
represents the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and
economically justified as required under
EPCA. The walk-down is not a
comparative analysis, as a comparative
analysis would result in the
maximization of net benefits instead of
energy savings that are technologically
feasible and economically justified,
which would be contrary to the statute.
86 FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has
not conducted a comparative analysis to
select the proposed energy conservation
standards, DOE notes that TSL 2 has a
lower percentage of consumers
experiencing a net cost and a shorter
payback period relative to TSL 3.
Although DOE considered proposed
amended standard levels for
conventional cooking products by
grouping the efficiency levels for each
product class into TSLs, DOE evaluates
all analyzed efficiency levels in its
analysis. For electric open (coil) element
cooking tops, TSL 2 represents the
baseline efficiency level, the only level
considered in this product class in this
SNOPR. For electric smooth element
cooking tops, TSL 2 represents EL 1
which incorporates low-standby-loss
electronic controls. Setting a standard at
EL 2 or EL 3 would result in a larger
percentage of consumers experiencing a
net LCC cost and longer payback
periods relative to EL 1. For gas cooking
tops, TSL 2 represents EL 2, the
maximum measured efficiency for
products with at least one HIR burner,
which is determined to be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. For electric and
gas ovens, TSL 2 corresponds to EL 1,
which incorporates switch mode power
supplies. A standard at EL 2 or EL 3 for
electric ovens would result in a
significantly higher percentage of
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost
and longer payback periods relative to
EL 1. Similarly, for gas ovens, a
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6894
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
standard at EL 2 would result in a larger
percentage of consumers experiencing a
net LCC cost and longer payback
periods relative to EL 1. The proposed
standard levels at TSL 2 results in
positive LCC savings for all product
classes and a lower percentage of
consumers experiencing a net cost to the
point where DOE has tentatively
concluded that they are economically
justified, as discussed for TSL 2 in the
preceding paragraphs.
Therefore, based on the above
considerations, DOE proposes to adopt
the energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking
products at TSL 2. The proposed
amended energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional cooking
products, are shown in Table V.55 and
Table V.56.
TABLE V.55—PROPOSED PERFORMANCE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING TOPS
Maximum integrated
annual energy
consumption
(IAEC)
Product class
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops ...........................................................................................................................
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops ..................................................................................................................................
Gas Cooking Tops ...................................................................................................................................................................
199 kWh/year.
207 kWh/year.
1,204 kBtu/year.
TABLE V.56—PROPOSED PRESCRIPTIVE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL OVENS
Product class
Prescriptive standards
Electric Standard, Freestanding .........................
Electric Standard, Built-In/Slide-In
Electric Self-Clean, Freestanding
Electric Self-Clean, Built-In/Slide-In
Gas Standard, Freestanding ..............................
Gas Standard, Built-In/Slide-In ...........................
Gas Self-Clean, Freestanding ............................
Gas Self-Clean, Built-In/Slide-In
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the
Proposed Standards
The benefits and costs of the proposed
standards can also be expressed in terms
of annualized values. The annualized
net benefit is (1) the annualized national
economic value (expressed in 2021$) of
the benefits from operating products
that meet the proposed standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost
savings from using less energy, minus
increases in product purchase costs, and
(2) the annualized monetary value of the
climate and health benefits from
emission reductions.
Shall not be equipped with a control system that uses linear power supply.
The control system for gas ovens shall:
(1) Not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light; and
(2) Not be equipped with a linear power supply.
Table V.57 shows the annualized
values for consumer conventional
cooking products under TSL 2,
expressed in 2021$. The results under
the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs and NOX
and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3percent discount rate case for GHG
social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for consumer
conventional cooking products is $32.5
million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $100.8 million from
reduced equipment operating costs,
$67.0 million from GHG reductions, and
$64.9 million from reduced NOX and
SO2 emissions. In this case, the net
benefit amounts to $200.3 million per
year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of
the proposed standards for consumer
conventional cooking products is $32.2
million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $130.7 million in reduced
operating costs, $67.0 million from GHG
reductions, and $93.8 million from
reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this
case, the net benefit amounts to $259.2
million per year.
TABLE V.57—TABLE V.57 ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS (TSL 2)
million 2021$/year
Primary
estimate
Low-netbenefits
estimate
High-netbenefits
estimate
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .............................................................................................
Climate Benefits * .........................................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .........................................................................................................................
130.7
67.0
93.8
124.7
65.3
91.4
137.9
68.4
95.6
Total Monetized Benefits † ...................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ......................................................................................
Net Monetized Benefits ...............................................................................................................
291.5
32.2
259.2
281.4
36.1
245.2
301.8
31.4
270.4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
6895
TABLE V.57—TABLE V.57 ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS (TSL 2)—Continued
million 2021$/year
Primary
estimate
Low-netbenefits
estimate
High-netbenefits
estimate
7% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .............................................................................................
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ..........................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .........................................................................................................................
100.8
67.0
64.9
96.5
65.3
63.4
105.8
68.4
66.0
Total Monetized Benefits † ...................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ......................................................................................
Net Monetized Benefits ...............................................................................................................
232.8
32.5
200.3
225.3
35.8
189.5
240.2
31.8
208.4
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 2027–2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027–2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High
Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic
Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in
the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are
explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational
purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department
does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using
all four SC–GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the Federal government’s emergency
motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D.
La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting,
employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate
and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 and
(for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions
in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for
more details.
† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the
Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
D. Reporting, Certification, and
Sampling Plan
Manufacturers, including importers,
must use product-specific certification
templates to certify compliance to DOE.
For consumer conventional cooking
products, the certification template
reflects the general certification
requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.12
and the product-specific requirements
specified at 10 CFR 429.23.
In manufacturer interviews, multiple
manufacturers expressed concern about
the variability of cooking top test results
and the potential impact on certifying
compliance, but none provided
information regarding how DOE should
consider such variability in its analysis
of potential energy conservation
standards for cooking tops. DOE notes
that as part of the August 2022 TP Final
Rule, a sampling plan for cooking tops
was established at 10 CFR 429.23,
requiring that a sample of sufficient size
be tested to ensure that any represented
value of IAEC be greater than the mean
of the sample or than the upper 97.5
percent confidence limit of the true
mean divided by 1.05. DOE is not
proposing to amend the product-specific
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
certification requirements for these
products in this SNOPR because it does
not have information regarding whether
the confidence limit should be adjusted.
DOE seeks comment and data to
potentially re-evaluate the sampling
plan for cooking tops in the context of
any potential performance standards for
these products.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as
supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O.
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan.
21, 2011), requires agencies, to the
extent permitted by law, to (1) propose
or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs (recognizing that some
benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to
impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among
other things, and to the extent
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public. DOE emphasizes as
well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to
use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(‘‘OIRA’’) in OMB has emphasized that
such techniques may include
identifying changing future compliance
costs that might result from
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6896
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. For the reasons
stated in the preamble, this proposed
regulatory action is consistent with
these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also
requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant
regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review.
OIRA has determined that this proposed
regulatory action constitutes a
‘‘significant regulatory action within the
scope of section 3(f)(1)’’ of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, pursuant to section
6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has
provided to OIRA an assessment,
including the underlying analysis, of
benefits and costs anticipated from the
proposed regulatory action, together
with, to the extent feasible, a
quantification of those costs; and an
assessment, including the underlying
analysis, of costs and benefits of
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives to the planned
regulation, and an explanation why the
planned regulatory action is preferable
to the identified potential alternatives.
These assessments are summarized in
this preamble and further detail can be
found in the technical support
document for this rulemaking.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by
law must be proposed for public
comment, unless the agency certifies
that the rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
As required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website (energy.gov/gc/officegeneral-counsel). DOE has prepared the
following IRFA for the products that are
the subject of this rulemaking.
For manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products, the SBA
has set a size threshold, which defines
those entities classified as ‘‘small
businesses’’ for the purposes of the
statute. DOE used the SBA’s small
business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be
subject to the requirements of the rule.
(See 13 CFR part 121.) The size
standards are listed by North American
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
Industry Classification System
(‘‘NAICS’’) code and industry
description and are available at
www.sba.gov/document/support—tablesize-standards. Manufacturing of
consumer conventional cooking
products is classified under NAICS
335220, ‘‘Major Household Appliance
Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a
threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer
for an entity to be considered as a small
business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is
Being Considered
EPCA prescribed energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional
cooking products (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)),
and directs DOE to conduct future
rulemakings to determine whether to
amend these standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(h)(2)) EPCA further provides that,
not later than 6 years after the issuance
of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, DOE must publish
either a notice of determination that
standards for the product do not need to
be amended, or a NOPR including new
proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
This rulemaking is in accordance with
DOE’s obligations under EPCA.
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for,
Rule
NAECA, Public Law 100–12,
amended EPCA to establish prescriptive
standards for gas cooking products,
requiring gas ranges and ovens with an
electrical supply cord that are
manufactured on or after January 1,
1990, not to be equipped with a
constant burning pilot light. (42
U.S.C.6295(h)(1)) NAECA also directed
DOE to conduct two cycles of
rulemakings to determine if more
stringent or additional standards were
justified for kitchen ranges and ovens.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)) EPCA
additionally requires that, not later than
6 years after the issuance of a final rule
establishing or amending a standard,
DOE publish a NOPR proposing new
standards or a notification of
determination that the existing
standards do not need to be amended.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) This rulemaking
is also in accordance with the six-year
review required under 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1).
3. Description of Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
DOE has recently conducted a focused
inquiry into small business
manufacturers of the products covered
by this rulemaking. DOE used the SBA’s
small business size standards to
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
determine whether any small entities
would be subject to the requirements of
the rule. The size standards are listed by
NAICS code as well as by industry
description and are available at
www.sba.gov/document/support—tablesize-standards. Manufacturing cooking
tops is classified under NAICS 335220,
‘‘major household appliance
manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a
threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer
for an entity to be considered as a small
business for this category. DOE used
available public information to identify
potential small manufacturers. DOE
accessed the Compliance Certification
Database 118 (CCD), the Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database
System 119 (MAEDbS), and the National
Resources Canada database 120 (NRCan)
to create a list of companies that import
or otherwise manufacture the products
covered by this SNOPR. Additionally, in
response to the September 2016 SNOPR,
Felix Storch provided a list of potential
small businesses, not previously
identified in the September 2016
SNOPR.121 (Felix Storch, No. 62 at p. 2)
Once DOE created a list of potential
manufacturers, DOE used market
research tools to determine whether any
companies met SBA’s definition of a
small entity—based on the total number
of employees for each company
including parent, subsidiary, and sister
entities—and gather annual revenue
estimates.
Based on DOE’s analysis, DOE
identified 34 companies potentially
manufacturing consumer conventional
cooking products covered by this
rulemaking. DOE screened out
companies that have more than 1,500
total employees or are entirely foreign
owned and operated, and therefore do
not meet SBA’s requirements to be
considered a small entity. Of the 34
companies DOE identified as
manufacturing consumer conventional
cooking products sold in the United
States, 15 were identified as potential
small businesses.
118 U.S. Department of Energy Compliance
Certification Management System, available at:
www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
119 California Energy Commission’s Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System, available at:
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Login.aspx.
120 Natural Resources Canada searchable product
list, available at: oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/.
121 Some of the companies Felix Storch
identified, either had more than 1,500 employees,
were completely foreign owned and operated, or
did not sell any products covered by this
rulemaking. Therefore, these companies do not
meet SBA’s definition of a small business and DOE
did not include these companies in this IRFA. The
remaining companies that do meet SBA’s definition
of a small business were included in this IRFA.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6897
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
4. Description and Estimate of
Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different
Groups of Small Entities
DOE is proposing TSL 2 in this
SNOPR. For all oven product classes,
TSL 2 requires that the ovens not be
equipped with a linear power supply.
Based on DOE’s shipment analysis more
than 95 percent of ovens use a switch
mode power supply and therefore are
not equipped with a linear power
supply. Based on DOE’s shipment
analysis, DOE assumed most, if not all,
small businesses already use switch
mode power supplies for the ovens they
manufacturer. If any small businesses
do still use linear power supplies in
their ovens, there would be minimal
conversion costs to these small
businesses, as switch mode power
supplies can be purchased as a separate
component and would most likely not
require a significant redesign to
incorporate these switch mode power
supplies. The remainder of this cost
analysis focuses on the costs associated
with complying with the proposed
cooking top energy conservation
standards.
As stated in the previous section, DOE
identified 15 potential small
manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products. All 15
of these small businesses manufacture
cooking tops. These 15 small businesses
can be grouped into two manufacturing
groups: those that manufacture entry
level cooking tops and those that
manufacture premium cooking tops.
Gas cooking top entry level products
typically have thinner non-continuous
grates with only one burner above
14,000 BTUs (although some of these
small businesses may offer a limited
number of models with thicker
continuous grates and more than one
burner above 14,000 BTUs). Electric
cooking top entry level products
typically have electric coil element
cooking tops (although a few small
businesses may have up to 25 percent of
their electric ranges or electric cooking
tops using electric smooth element
cooking tops). These entry level small
businesses usually compete on price in
the market.
Gas cooking top premium products
typically have thicker continuous grates
with multiple burners above 14,000
BTUs. Electric cooking top premium
products use smooth element, typically
with induction technology. Small
businesses manufacturing premium
products do not offer electric coil
element cooking tops. Lastly, small
businesses manufacturing premium
products typically compete on the high
quality and professional look and design
of their products. These ranges or
cooking tops are typically significantly
more expensive than entry level
products.
Based on data from each small
business’s websites, DOE estimated the
number of basic models each small
business offers.
TABLE VI.2—NUMBER OF UNIQUE BASIC MODELS FOR EACH SMALL BUSINESS
Number of cooking top basic models
(by product class)
Manufacturer
Small business type
Smooth
element
Gas
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
1 ............................................
2 ............................................
3 ............................................
4 ............................................
5 ............................................
6 ............................................
7 ............................................
8 ............................................
9 ............................................
10 ..........................................
11 ..........................................
12 ..........................................
13 ..........................................
14 ..........................................
15 ..........................................
DOE estimated the small business
conversion costs and testing costs using
the same methodology used to estimate
the industry conversion costs, described
in section IV.J.2.c of this document.
There are two types of conversion costs
that small businesses could incur due to
the proposed standards: product
conversion costs (including any testing
costs) and capital conversion costs.
Felix Storch commented in response to
the September 2016 SNOPR that small
manufacturers often lack the staff with
expertise to fully understand the test
procedures, complexities and nuances
of the regulations. (Felix Storch, No. 62
at p. 2) Additionally, Felix Storch
commented that small manufacturers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
Entry Level .....................................................
Entry Level .....................................................
Entry Level .....................................................
Entry Level .....................................................
Entry Level .....................................................
Entry Level .....................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
pay substantially more and have longer
lead times for energy testing. (Felix
Storch, No. 62 at p. 3) In the August
2022 TP Final Rule, DOE estimated a
lower per unit testing costs for testing
done in-house and a more costly thirdparty lab per unit testing cost. For this
IRFA, DOE assumed all small
businesses would incur the more costly
third-party lab per unit testing cost, as
most small businesses do not have inhouse testing capabilities or capacity to
test all their products in accordance
with the DOE test procedure.
Product conversion costs are
investments in R&D, testing, marketing,
and other non-capitalized costs
necessary to make product designs
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4
14
3
24
27
14
42
16
24
12
11
13
14
20
Open (coil)
element
4
2
30
13
13
3
13
28
5
1
7
comply with new and amended energy
conservation standards. Capital
conversion costs are investments in
property, plant, and equipment
necessary to adapt or change existing
production facilities such that new
compliant product designs can be
fabricated and assembled.
Manufacturers would have to incur
testing costs for all cooking tops since
DOE is proposing to establish a new
energy conservation standard for
cooking tops. Therefore, even products
that meet the proposed energy
conservation standard would incur
testing costs to test these cooking tops
to demonstrate compliance with the
proposed energy conservation
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6898
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
standards. However, manufacturers
would only incur R&D product
conversion costs and capital conversion
costs if they have products that do not
meet the energy conservation standards.
Based on the estimated model counts
for each cooking top product class
shown in Table VI.2 and the conversion
cost and testing cost methodology used
to calculate industry conversion costs,
DOE estimated the conversion costs and
testing costs for each small business,
displayed in Table VI.3. DOE then used
D&B Hoovers 122 to estimate the annual
revenue for each small business.
Manufacturers will have 3 years
between publication of a final rule and
compliance with the energy
conservation standards. Therefore, DOE
presents the estimated conversion costs
and testing costs as a percent of the
estimated 3 years of annual revenue for
each small business.
TABLE VI.3—ESTIMATED CONVERSION COSTS AND ANNUAL REVENUE FOR EACH SMALL BUSINESS
Manufacturer
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Total
conversion
and testing
costs
Small business type
1 ............................................
2 ............................................
3 ............................................
4 ............................................
5 ............................................
6 ............................................
7 ............................................
8 ............................................
9 ............................................
10 ..........................................
11 ..........................................
12 ..........................................
13 ..........................................
14 ..........................................
15 ..........................................
Entry Level .....................................................
Entry Level .....................................................
Entry Level .....................................................
Entry Level .....................................................
Entry Level .....................................................
Entry Level .....................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Premium .........................................................
Average Small Business .................................
Based on Table VI.3 there are two
premium small businesses
manufacturers that could be
significantly impacted by this proposed
rulemaking, if finalized as proposed.
DOE requests comment on its findings
that there are 15 domestic small
businesses that manufacture
conventional cooking products and its
estimate of the potential impacts on
these small businesses. Additionally,
DOE requests comment on the potential
for any small businesses to exit the
consumer conventional cooking
products market in response to the
proposed energy conservation
standards.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict
With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or
regulations that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the rule being considered.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The discussion in the previous
section analyzes impacts on small
businesses that would result from DOE’s
proposed rule, represented by TSL 2. In
reviewing alternatives to the proposed
rule, DOE examined energy
conservation standards set at lower
efficiency levels. DOE estimates that
manufacturers, including small
businesses, would have to spend
approximately 43 percent less
conversion costs at TSL 1 compared to
TSL 2. While TSL 1 would reduce the
impacts on small business
manufacturers, it would come at the
expense of a reduction in energy savings
and consumer savings. TSL 1 achieves
39 percent lower energy savings
compared to the energy savings at TSL
2. Additionally, TSL 1 achieves 44
percent lower consumer NPV at 3
percent and 49 percent lower consumer
NPV at 7 percent compared to the
consumer NPV achieved at TSL 2.
Based on the presented discussion,
establishing standards at TSL 2 balances
the benefits of the energy savings at TSL
2 with the potential burdens placed on
consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers, including small business
manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does
not propose one of the other TSLs
considered in the analysis, or the other
policy alternatives examined as part of
the regulatory impact analysis and
included in chapter 17 of the TSD for
this SNOPR.
$358,000
814,000
945,400
303,400
221,400
336,800
2,227,050
4,021,200
3,612,600
2,784,800
2,830,500
2,338,600
5,685,100
2,450,150
2,561,700
$950,000
8,780,000
58,630,000
31,370,000
23,980,000
107,350,000
2,730,000
5,000,000
8,800,000
7,990,000
8,648,000
10,970,000
32,600,000
19,800,000
23,730,000
13
3
1
<1
<1
<1
27
27
14
12
11
7
6
4
4
2,099,380
23,421,867
3
DOE seeks comment on the policy
alternatives presented in the regulatory
impact analysis and data that can be
used to estimate the manufacturer
response to Federal credits.
Additional compliance flexibilities
may be available through other means.
EPCA provides that a manufacturer
whose annual gross revenue from all of
its operations does not exceed $8
million may apply for an exemption
from all or part of an energy
conservation standard for a period not
longer than 24 months after the effective
date of a final rule establishing the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t))
Additionally, manufacturers subject to
DOE’s energy efficiency standards may
apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings and
Appeals for exception relief under
certain circumstances. Manufacturers
should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional
details.
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(‘‘PRA’’), a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless that
122 See: app.avention.com. Last accessed on
August 22, 2022.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Annual
revenue
Conversion
costs as a %
of 3-years of
annual
revenue
(%)
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
OMB Control Number 1910–1400,
Compliance Statement Energy/Water
Conservation Standards for Appliances,
is currently valid and assigned to the
certification reporting requirements
applicable to covered equipment,
including consumer conventional
cooking products.
DOE’s certification and compliance
activities ensure accurate and
comprehensive information about the
energy and water use characteristics of
covered products and covered
equipment sold in the United States.
Manufacturers of all covered products
and covered equipment must submit a
certification report before a basic model
is distributed in commerce, annually
thereafter, and if the basic model is
redesigned in such a manner to increase
the consumption or decrease the
efficiency of the basic model such that
the certified rating is no longer
supported by the test data. Additionally,
manufacturers must report when
production of a basic model has ceased
and is no longer offered for sale as part
of the next annual certification report
following such cessation. DOE requires
the manufacturer of any covered
product or covered equipment to
establish, maintain, and retain the
records of certification reports, of the
underlying test data for all certification
testing, and of any other testing
conducted to satisfy the requirements of
part 429, part 430, and/or part 431.
Certification reports provide DOE and
consumers with comprehensive, up-to
date efficiency information and support
effective enforcement.
Revised certification data would be
required for gas cooking tops and
conventional gas ovens were this
SNOPR to be finalized as proposed.
New certification data would be
required for electric cooking tops and
conventional electric ovens were this
SNOPR to be finalized as proposed.
However, DOE is not proposing new or
amended certification or reporting
requirements for consumer conventional
cooking products in this SNOPR.
Instead, DOE may consider proposals to
establish certification requirements and
reporting for consumer conventional
cooking products under a separate
rulemaking regarding appliance and
equipment certification. DOE will
address changes to OMB Control
Number 1910–1400 at that time, as
necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed
regulation in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part
1021). DOE’s regulations include a
categorical exclusion for rulemakings
that establish energy conservation
standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021,
subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE
anticipates that this rulemaking
qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1
because it is a rulemaking that
establishes energy conservation
standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment, none of the
exceptions identified in categorical
exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no
extraordinary circumstances exist that
require further environmental analysis,
and it otherwise meets the requirements
for application of a categorical
exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE
will complete its NEPA review before
issuing the final rule.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR
43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain
requirements on Federal agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications. The
Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive order also requires agencies to
have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE has examined this proposed
rule and has tentatively determined that
it would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the products
that are the subject of this proposed
rule. States can petition DOE for
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6899
exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no
further action is required by Executive
Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O.
12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes
on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements:
(1) eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
rather than a general standard, and (4)
promote simplification and burden
reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).
Regarding the review required by
section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988
specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to
ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly
specifies the preemptive effect, if any,
(2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4)
specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5)
adequately defines key terms, and (6)
addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines
issued by the Attorney General. Section
3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this proposed
rule meets the relevant standards of E.O.
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Pub. L. 104–4, section
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
proposed regulatory action likely to
result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
6900
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820. DOE’s policy statement is also
available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
Although this proposed rule does not
contain a Federal intergovernmental
mandate, it may require expenditures of
$100 million or more in any one year by
the private sector. Such expenditures
may include: (1) investment in research
and development and in capital
expenditures by consumer conventional
cooking products manufacturers in the
years between the final rule and the
compliance date for the new standards
and (2) incremental additional
expenditures by consumers to purchase
higher-efficiency consumer
conventional cooking products, starting
at the compliance date for the
applicable standard.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a
Federal agency to respond to the content
requirements of UMRA in any other
statement or analysis that accompanies
the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c))
The content requirements of section
202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private
sector mandate substantially overlap the
economic analysis requirements that
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and
Executive Order 12866. The
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this SNOPR and the TSD for this
proposed rule respond to those
requirements.
Under section 205 of UMRA, the
Department is obligated to identify and
consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a written
statement under section 202 is required.
(2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to
select from those alternatives the most
cost-effective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the proposed rule unless DOE
publishes an explanation for doing
otherwise, or the selection of such an
alternative is inconsistent with law. As
required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), this
proposed rule would establish new and
amended energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional cooking
products that are designed to achieve
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE has determined to
be both technologically feasible and
economically justified, as required by 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the
alternatives considered by DOE is
presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for
this proposed rule.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
rule would not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as
an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to
prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988),
DOE has determined that this proposed
rule would not result in any takings that
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for Federal agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under information quality
guidelines established by each agency
pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published
at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE’s guidelines were published at 67
FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to
OMB Memorandum M–19–15,
Improving Implementation of the
Information Quality Act (April 24,
2019), DOE published updated
guidelines which are available at
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/
12/f70/
DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA
%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf.
DOE has reviewed this SNOPR under
the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires
Federal agencies to prepare and submit
to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy
Effects for any proposed significant
energy action. A ‘‘significant energy
action’’ is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected
to lead to promulgation of a final rule,
and that (1) is a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866, or
any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, or
(3) is designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that
this regulatory action, which proposes
new and amended energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional
cooking products, is not a significant
energy action because the proposed
standards are not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it
been designated as such by the
Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a Statement of
Energy Effects on this proposed rule.
L. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’),
issued its Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the
Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005).
The Bulletin establishes that certain
scientific information shall be peer
reviewed by qualified specialists before
it is disseminated by the Federal
Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency
regulatory actions. The purpose of the
bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. Under the
Bulletin, the energy conservation
standards rulemaking analyses are
‘‘influential scientific information,’’
which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific
information the agency reasonably can
determine will have, or does have, a
clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private
sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE
conducted formal peer reviews of the
energy conservation standards
development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
a report describing that peer review.123
Generation of this report involved a
rigorous, formal, and documented
evaluation using objective criteria and
qualified and independent reviewers to
make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or
anticipated results, and the productivity
and management effectiveness of
programs and/or projects. Because
available data, models, and
technological understanding have
changed since 2007, DOE has engaged
with the National Academy of Sciences
to review DOE’s analytical
methodologies to ascertain whether
modifications are needed to improve the
Department’s analyses. DOE is in the
process of evaluating the resulting
report.124
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar
meeting are listed in the DATES section
at the beginning of this document.
Webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be
published on DOE’s website at
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/
standards.aspx?productid=34.
Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the
webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Any person who has an interest in the
topics addressed in this document, or
who is representative of a group or class
of persons that has an interest in these
issues, may request an opportunity to
make an oral presentation at the
webinar. Such persons may submit to
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a
computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft
Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format
that briefly describes the nature of their
interest in this rulemaking and the
topics they wish to discuss. Such
persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be
reached.
123 The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the
following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/
downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed July
1, 2022).
124 The report is available at
www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
DOE requests persons selected to
make an oral presentation to submit an
advance copy of their statements at least
two weeks before the webinar. At its
discretion, DOE may permit persons
who cannot supply an advance copy of
their statement to participate, if those
persons have made advance alternative
arrangements with the Building
Technologies Office. As necessary,
requests to give an oral presentation
should ask for such alternative
arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to
preside at the webinar/public meeting
and may also use a professional
facilitator to aid discussion. The
meeting will not be a judicial or
evidentiary-type public hearing, but
DOE will conduct it in accordance with
section 336 of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6306) A
court reporter will be present to record
the proceedings and prepare a
transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and
to establish the procedures governing
the conduct of the webinar. There shall
not be discussion of proprietary
information, costs or prices, market
share, or other commercial matters
regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After
the webinar and until the end of the
comment period, interested parties may
submit further comments on the
proceedings, as well as on any aspect of
the rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an
informal, conference style. DOE will
present a general overview of the topics
addressed in this rulemaking, allow
time for prepared general statements by
participants, and encourage all
interested parties to share their views on
issues affecting this rulemaking. Each
participant will be allowed to make a
general statement (within time limits
determined by DOE), before the
discussion of specific topics. DOE will
allow, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any
general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements
on a topic, DOE will permit participants
to clarify their statements briefly.
Participants should be prepared to
answer questions by DOE and by other
participants concerning these issues.
DOE representatives may also ask
questions of participants concerning
other matters relevant to this
rulemaking. The official conducting the
webinar/public meeting will accept
additional comments or questions from
those attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification
of the previous procedures that may be
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6901
needed for the proper conduct of the
webinar.
A transcript of the webinar will be
included in the docket, which can be
viewed as described in the Docket
section at the beginning of this
document and will be accessible on the
DOE website. In addition, any person
may buy a copy of the transcript from
the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule before or after the public meeting,
but no later than the date provided in
the DATES section at the beginning of
this proposed rule. Interested parties
may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
6902
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DOE processes submissions made
through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Please keep the comment tracking
number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email.
Comments and documents submitted
via email also will be posted to
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via postal mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and
that are free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email two well-marked
copies: one copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted. DOE
will make its own determination about
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on its
proposed definition for portable
conventional cooking top and DOE’s
proposal to include portable
conventional cooking tops in the
existing product classes. DOE also seeks
data and information on its initial
determination not to differentiate
conventional cooking tops on the basis
of portability when considering product
classes for this SNOPR analysis.
(2) DOE seeks comment on the
impacts of downdraft venting systems
on energy consumption and associated
data about such impacts. DOE further
requests comment on its proposal to not
include the energy consumption of any
downdraft venting system in the energy
conservation standards for conventional
cooking tops.
(3) DOE requests comment on its
proposed tested configuration and
determination of representative IAEC for
single-zone non-portable cooking tops.
(4) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to not define ‘‘basic model’’
with respect to cooking products or
cooking tops, and on possible
definitions for ‘‘basic model’’ with
respect to cooking products or cooking
tops that could be used if DOE were to
determine such a definition is
necessary.
(5) DOE welcomes data on the
consumer usage patterns of pyrolytic
versus non-pyrolytic self-cleaning
functions in conventional ovens, and
requests comment on its preliminary
determination that self-cleaning
technologies do not warrant separate
product class considerations.
(6) DOE seeks comment on the
product classes evaluated in this
SNOPR.
(7) DOE seeks comment on any
existing technologies that improve the
efficiency of electric open (coil) element
cooking tops.
(8) DOE requests information on the
potential energy savings associated with
intermittent pilot ignition systems.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(9) DOE requests comment on the
magnitude of potential energy savings
that could result from the use of a
reduced air gap as a technology option.
(10) DOE seeks comment on its
screening analysis for conventional
electric cooking tops and whether any
additional technology options should be
screened out on the basis of any of the
screening criteria in this SNOPR.
(11) DOE seeks comment on its
screening analysis for conventional gas
cooking tops and whether any
additional technology options should be
screened out on the basis of any of the
screening criteria in this SNOPR.
(12) DOE seeks comment on its
screening analysis for conventional
ovens and whether any additional
technology options should be screened
out on the basis of any of the screening
criteria in this SNOPR.
(13) DOE seeks comment on the
retained design options for consumer
conventional cooking products.
(14) DOE seeks comment on the
methodology and results for the
proposed baseline efficiency levels for
conventional cooking tops.
(15) DOE seeks comment on the
methodology and results for the
proposed incremental efficiency levels
for electric cooking tops.
(16) DOE seeks comment on the
methodology and results for the
proposed incremental efficiency levels
for gas cooking tops.
(17) DOE seeks comment on the
definitions of the proposed efficiency
level for conventional ovens.
(18) DOE seeks comment on the
methodology and results for the
estimated energy use of each proposed
efficiency level for conventional ovens.
(19) DOE seeks comment on the
manufacturer production costs for
consumer conventional cooking
products used in this analysis.
(20) DOE requests comment on data
and information on how the pandemic
has changed consumer cooking behavior
and product usage.
(21) DOE seeks feedback and
comment on its estimate for repair costs
for consumer conventional cooking
products.
(22) DOE requests comment and
additional data on its estimates for the
lifetime distribution.
(23) DOE requests comment and
feedback on its efficiency assignment in
the LCC analysis.
(24) DOE seeks comment and
feedback on its estimate for the no-newstandards case efficiency distribution.
(25) DOE seeks comment on the
distribution between electric and gas
cooking products over the shipments
analysis period and the potential for
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
fuel switching between electric and gas
cooking products. Specifically, DOE
requests data on existing policy
incentives for consumers to switch fuels
and data that indicates the number of
consumers switching fuel types between
electric and gas cooking products.
(26) DOE requests data on the market
size and typical selling price of units
sold through the second-hand market
for cooking products.
(27) DOE welcomes input on the
effect of new and amended standards on
impacts across products within the
same fuel class and equipment type.
(28) DOE seeks comment on the
general approach to its shipments
methodology.
(29) DOE seeks feedback on its
assumption of no rebound effect
associated with the use of more efficient
conventional cooking products as a
result of a standard.
(30) DOE requests comment on
whether additional consumer
subgroups, including any disaggregation
of the subgroups analyzed in this
SNOPR, may be disproportionately
affected by a new or amended national
standard and warrant additional
analysis in the final rule.
(31) DOE requests comment on the
use of 9.1 percent as an appropriate real
discount rate for consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers.
(32) DOE seeks comment on any
health impacts to consumers,
environmental impacts, or general
public health and welfare impacts
(including the distribution of such
impacts across sensitive populations) of
its proposals in this SNOPR on on-site
emissions from gas cooking products of
methane, carbon dioxide, particulate
matter, nitrogen dioxide, or other
hazardous air emissions. DOE also seeks
comment on whether manufacturers are
instituting design approaches, control
strategies, or other measures to mitigate
methane or other emissions from
incomplete combustion and leakage.
(33) DOE requests comment on the
estimated potential domestic
employment impacts on consumer
conventional cooking product
manufacturers presented in this SNOPR.
(34) DOE requests comment on the
potential manufacturing capacity
constraints placed on consumer
conventional cooking product
manufacturers at the TSLs presented in
this SNOPR.
(35) DOE requests comment on the
potential impacts on commercial-style
manufacturers at the TSLs presented in
this SNOPR.
(36) DOE requests information
regarding the impact of cumulative
regulatory burden on manufacturers of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
consumer conventional cooking
products associated with multiple DOE
standards or product-specific regulatory
actions of other Federal agencies.
(37) DOE invites comment from the
public regarding the competitive
impacts that are likely to result from
this proposed rule. In addition,
stakeholders may also provide
comments separately to DOJ regarding
these potential impacts. See the
ADDRESSES section for information to
send comments to DOJ.
(38) DOE seeks comment on any
impacts of its proposals in this SNOPR
on indoor air pollutants released by gas
cooking products, as well as any other
design approaches, control strategies, or
other measures to mitigate these
emissions.
(39) DOE welcomes data submissions
and comments that will provide for a
fuller assessment of the potential impact
of energy conservation standards on
consumer choice and how to quantify
this impact in its regulatory analysis in
future rulemakings.
(40) DOE seeks comment and data to
potentially re-evaluate the sampling
plan for cooking tops in the context of
any potential performance standards for
these products.
(41) DOE requests comment on its
findings that there are 15 domestic
small businesses that manufacture
conventional cooking products and its
estimate of the potential impacts on
these small businesses. Additionally,
DOE requests comment on the potential
for any small businesses to exit the
consumer conventional cooking
products market in response to the
proposed energy conservation
standards.
(42) DOE seeks comment on the
policy alternatives presented in the
regulatory impact analysis and data that
can be used to estimate the
manufacturer response to Federal
credits.
Additionally, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this rulemaking that may
not specifically be identified in this
document.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this supplemental notice
of proposed rulemaking and
announcement of public meeting.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6903
Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Small
businesses.
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on December 23,
2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document
with the original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on January 10,
2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts
429 and 430 of chapter II, subchapter D,
of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 429—CERTIFICATION,
COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT
FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 429
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
2. Amend § 429.23 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 429.23
Cooking products.
(a) Determination of represented
values. Manufacturers must determine
the represented values, which include
the certified ratings, for each basic
model of cooking product by testing, in
conjunction with the applicable
sampling provisions.
(1) Sampling plan for selection of
units for testing. (i) The requirements of
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
6904
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules
§ 429.11 are applicable to cooking
products; and
(ii) For each basic model of cooking
product, a sample of sufficient size shall
be randomly selected and tested to
ensure that any represented value of
estimated annual operating cost,
standby mode power consumption, off
mode power consumption, annual
energy consumption, integrated annual
energy consumption, or other measure
of energy consumption of a basic model
for which consumers would favor lower
values shall be greater than or equal to
the higher of:
(A) The mean of the sample, where:
and x is the sample mean; n is the
number of samples; and xi is the ith
sample; Or,
(B) The upper 971⁄2 percent
confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.05, where:
UCL
= x + t.91s (~)
Where:
IAECsingle is the IAEC for the non-portable
conventional cooking top unit containing
the single cooking zone included in the
tested configuration as determined in
§ 430.23(i)(2) of this chapter; and
IAECdouble is the IAEC for the comparable
non-portable conventional cooking top
unit containing two cooking zones
included in the tested configuration as
determined in § 430.23(i)(2) of this
chapter.
(2) If the tested configuration includes
only the non-portable conventional
cooking top unit containing the single
cooking zone, the represented value of
IAEC is equal to that cooking top’s IAEC
as determined in § 430.23(i)(2) of this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS
3. The authority citation for part 430
continues to read as follows:
4. Amend § 430.2 by adding in
alphabetical order, the definition of
‘‘Portable conventional cooking top’’ to
read as follows:
■
§ 430.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Portable conventional cooking top
means a conventional cooking top
designed to be moved place to place.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Amend § 430.32 by revising
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation
standards and their compliance dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Cooking Products. (1) The control
system of a conventional oven shall:
(i) Not be equipped with a constant
burning pilot light for gas ovens
manufactured on or after April 9, 2012;
and
(ii) Not be equipped with a linear
power supply for electric and gas ovens
manufactured on or after [DATE 3
YEARS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) Conventional cooking tops
manufactured on or after [DATE 3
YEARS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] shall have
an integrated annual energy
consumption, excluding any downdraft
venting system energy consumption, no
greater than:
Maximum
integrated
annual energy
consumption
(IAEC)
(kWh/year)
Product class
(i) Electric Cooking Tops—
Open (Coil) Elements .......
(ii) Electric Cooking Tops—
Smooth Elements ..............
(iii) Gas Cooking Tops ..........
*
*
*
*
199
207
1,204
*
[FR Doc. 2023–00610 Filed 1–31–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
EP01FE23.001</GPH>
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Jan 31, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE23.000</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
And x is the sample mean; s is the
sample standard deviation; n is the
number of samples; and t0.975 is the t
statistic for a 97.5% one-tailed
confidence interval with n¥1 degrees of
freedom (from appendix A).
(2) Product-specific provisions for
determination of represented values. (i)
Non-portable conventional cooking tops
with a single cooking zone.
(A) Representations for a basic model
must be based on the tested
configuration. For the purpose of this
paragraph (a)(2)(i), the ‘‘tested
configuration’’ means:
(1) The non-portable conventional
cooking top unit containing the single
cooking zone, and
(2) If commercially available from the
same manufacturer, the non-portable
conventional cooking top unit that has
similar design characteristics (e.g.,
construction materials, user interface) as
the non-portable conventional cooking
top containing the single cooking zone,
but that contains two cooking zones that
are within the same product class and
use the same heating technology (i.e.,
gas flame, electric resistive heating, or
electric inductive heating) and energy
source (e.g., voltage, gas type) as the
non-portable conventional cooking top
containing the single cooking zone. If
more than one such comparable unit
with two cooking zones is commercially
available from the same manufacturer,
the least energy consumptive of those
units with two cooking zones shall be
included in the tested configuration. If
no such comparable unit with two
cooking zones is commercially available
from the same manufacturer, the tested
configuration shall be only the nonportable conventional cooking top unit
containing the single cooking zone.
(B) Determination of the represented
value of integrated annual energy
consumption (IAEC) of the tested
configuration of a non-portable
conventional cooking top with a single
cooking zone.
(1) If the tested configuration includes
a comparable non-portable conventional
cooking top unit containing two cooking
zones, the represented value of IAEC is
calculated as follows:
IAEC = 1⁄3 × IAECsingle × 2⁄3 × IAECdouble
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6818-6904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00610]
[[Page 6817]]
Vol. 88
Wednesday,
No. 21
February 1, 2023
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer
Conventional Cooking Products; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 6818]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005]
RIN 1904-AD15
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of
public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including consumer
conventional cooking products. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department
of Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified,
and would result in significant energy savings. In this supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (``SNOPR''), DOE proposes new and amended
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on
these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Tuesday,
January 31, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII of this
document, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants.
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this SNOPR no later than April 3, 2023.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before March 3, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005, by any of the
following methods:
Email: [email protected]. Include
the docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005 in the subject line of the
message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments
through www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Division at [email protected] on or
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this
proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5649. Email:
[email protected].
Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Conventional
Cooking Products
3. Basis for This Proposed Rule
C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
C. Test Procedure
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
c. Evaluated Product Classes
2. Technology Options
a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops
[[Page 6819]]
b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
c. Conventional Ovens
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
c. Conventional Ovens
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
2. Cost Analysis
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
4. Manufacturer Selling Price
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy and Gas Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Markup Scenarios
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer
Conventional Cooking Products Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description of Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317). Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309). These products include consumer conventional cooking
products, the subject of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). Furthermore, the new
or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). EPCA also provides that not later
than six years after issuance of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination
that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice
of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)).
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes new and amended energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking products. Per its authority
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2), DOE proposes to remove the existing
prescriptive standard for gas cooking tops prohibiting a constant
burning pilot light. Instead, for conventional cooking tops, DOE
proposes performance standards only, shown in Table I.1 which are the
maximum allowable integrated annual energy consumption (``IAEC'') and
expressed in kilowatt-hours per year (``kWh/year'') for electric
cooking tops and thousand British thermal units per year (``kBtu/
year'') for gas cooking tops. The IAEC includes active mode, standby
mode, and off mode energy use. These proposed standards for
conventional cooking tops, if adopted, would apply to all product
classes listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the
United States starting on the date three years after the publication of
any final rule for this rulemaking. DOE notes that constant burning
pilot lights, which are currently prohibited under the existing
prescriptive standard for gas cooking tops, 10 CFR 430.32(j), consume
approximately 2,000 kBtu/year. While DOE's proposal would remove this
prescriptive requirement from its regulations, DOE notes that, based on
its review of the existing prescriptive standard prohibiting constant
burning pilots for gas cooking tops, the proposed
[[Page 6820]]
performance standards of 1,204 kBtu per year for gas cooking tops would
not be achievable by products if they were to incorporate a constant
burning pilot.
Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Performance Standards for
Conventional Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum integrated annual
Product class energy consumption (IAEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops.... 199 kWh/year.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops......... 207 kWh/year.
Gas Cooking Tops............................. 1,204 kBtu/year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For conventional ovens, the proposed standard is a prescriptive
design requirement for the control system of the oven. Conventional
ovens shall not be equipped with a control system that uses a linear
power supply. (See Table I.2). These proposed standards, if adopted,
would apply to all conventional ovens manufactured in, or imported
into, the United States starting on the date three years after the
publication of the final rule for this rulemaking. DOE also notes that
the current prescriptive standards for conventional gas ovens
prohibiting constant burning pilot lights would continue to be
applicable. (10 CFR 430.32(j)). Table I.2 provides a summary of the
proposed standards for conventional ovens.
Table I.2--Proposed Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards for
Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current SNOPR
Product class Current standard proposed standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard, None............. Shall not be equipped
Freestanding. with a control
Electric Standard, Built-In/ system that uses
Slide-In.. linear power
supply.*
Electric Self-Clean,
Freestanding.
Electric Self-Clean, Built-In/
Slide-In.
Gas Standard, Freestanding.... No constant The control system
Gas Standard, Built-In/Slide- burning pilot for gas ovens shall:
In.. light. (1) Not be equipped
Gas Self-Clean, Freestanding.. with a constant
burning pilot light;
and
(2) Not be equipped
with a linear power
supply.*
Gas Self-Clean, Built-In/Slide-
In.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A linear power supply produces unregulated as well as regulated power.
The unregulated portion of a linear power supply typically consists of
a transformer that steps alternating current (``AC'') line voltage
down, a voltage rectifier circuit for AC to direct current (``DC'')
conversion, and a capacitor to produce unregulated, direct current
output. Linear power supplies are described in section IV.C.1.b of
this SNOPR.
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
Table I.3 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the
proposed standards, represented by trial standard level (``TSL'') 2, on
consumers of conventional cooking products, as measured by the average
life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period
(``PBP'').\3\ The shipment-weighted average LCC savings are positive
for all product classes, and the shipment-weighted PBP is less than the
average lifetime of consumer conventional cooking products, which is
estimated to be 16.8 years for electric cooking products and 14.5 years
for gas cooking products (see section IV.F.6 of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards
(see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative
to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document).
Table I.3--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Conventional Cooking Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC savings Simple payback period
Product class (2021$) (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops *.................... $0.00 n.a.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops........................... 13.29 0.6
Gas Cooking Tops............................................... 21.89 5.0
Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding.......................... 0.99 1.7
Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In..................... 0.95 1.8
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding........................ 1.02 1.7
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In................... 1.01 1.8
Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding............................... 0.65 1.9
Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.......................... 0.59 2.0
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding............................. 0.70 1.9
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In........................ 0.60 2.0
Shipment-weighted Average **................................... 6.75 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The entry ``n.a.'' means not applicable because the standard at the proposed TSL is the baseline.
** Results are weighted by projected shipments of the compliance year (2027).
[[Page 6821]]
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.
B. Impact on Manufacturers
The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the
end of the analysis period (2022-2056). Using a real discount rate of
9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products in the case without new and amended
standards is $1,607 million in 2021 dollars. Under the proposed
standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from -9.6 percent
to -9.4 percent, which is approximately -$154.8 million to -$150.4
million. In order to bring products into compliance with new and
amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total
conversion costs of $183.4 million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are
presented in section V.B.2 of this document.
C. National Benefits and Costs 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking products would save a
significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new and
amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for consumer
conventional cooking products purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new and amended
standards (2027-2056) amount to 0.46 quadrillion British thermal units
(``Btu''), or quads.\5\ This represents a savings of 3.4 percent
relative to the energy use of these products in the case without
amended standards (referred to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking
products ranges from $0.65 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to
$1.71 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the
estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the
estimated increased product and installation costs for consumer
conventional cooking products purchased in 2027-2056.
In addition, the proposed standards for consumer conventional
cooking products are projected to yield significant environmental
benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in
cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy
savings) of 21.9 million metric tons (``Mt'') \6\ of carbon dioxide
(``CO2''), 2.2 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide
(``SO2''), 51.8 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(``NOX''), 244.9 thousand tons of methane
(``CH4''), 0.1 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N2O''), and 0.01 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
\7\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2022 (``AEO2022''). AEO2022 represents current federal and
state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the
time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for
further discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that effect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO2 (``SC-CO2''), the social cost of
methane (``SC-CH4''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SC-N2O''). Together these represent the social cost of
GHG (``SC-GHG'').\8\ DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(``IWG'').\9\ The derivation of these values is discussed in section
IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate
benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount
rate are estimated to be $1.17 billion. DOE does not have a single
central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and
value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in the
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in
this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction
and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible
under law.
\9\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane,
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990,
Washington, DC, February 2021. www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated the monetary health benefits from SO2 and
NOX emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates
from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this
document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would
be $0.61 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $1.63 billion
using a 3-percent discount rate.\10\ DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor
health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I.4 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to
result from the proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking
products. There are other important unquantified effects, including
certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health
benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants, direct
PM2.5 and other emissions that affect both indoor and
outdoor air quality, unquantified energy security benefits, and
distributional effects, among others.
[[Page 6822]]
Table I.4--Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
[TSL 2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion 2021$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................... 2.28
Climate Benefits *...................................... 1.17
Health Benefits **...................................... 1.63
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]....................... 5.08
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............. 0.56
Net Monetized Benefits.................................. 4.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................... 0.95
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................... 1.17
Health Benefits **...................................... 0.61
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]....................... 2.74
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............. 0.31
Net Monetized Benefits.................................. 2.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with
consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 2027--2056. These
results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the
products shipped in 2027--2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
(SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent
discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see
section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-
GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087)
granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending
appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of
the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in
effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the
preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from
``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were
issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has
reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents
monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation
purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount
rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
installation costs.
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits
of emission reductions, all annualized.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year
to 2022. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed
annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance
year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The national operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer
monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered
products and are measured for the lifetime of consumer conventional
cooking products shipped in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with
reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are
also calculated based on the lifetime of consumer conventional cooking
products shipped in 2027-2056. Total benefits for both the 3-percent
and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs
with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG are presented for all
four discount rates in section IV.L of this document.
Table I.5 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards
proposed in this rule is $32.5 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $100.8 million in
reduced equipment operating costs, $67.0 million in climate benefits,
and $64.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit
would amount to $200.3 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $32.2 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are
$130.7 million in reduced operating costs, $67.0 million in climate
benefits, and $93.8 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $259.2 million per year.
[[Page 6823]]
Table I.5--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional
Cooking Products
[TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2021$/year
-----------------------------------------------
Low-net- High-net-
Primary benefits benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 130.7 124.7 137.9
Climate Benefits *.............................................. 67.0 65.3 68.4
Health Benefits **.............................................. 93.8 91.4 95.6
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]............................... 291.5 281.4 301.8
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..................... 32.2 36.1 31.4
Net Monetized Benefits.......................................... 259.2 245.2 270.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 100.8 96.5 105.8
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)........................... 67.0 65.3 68.4
Health Benefits **.............................................. 64.9 63.4 66.0
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]............................... 232.8 225.3 240.2
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..................... 32.5 35.8 31.8
Net Monetized Benefits.......................................... 200.3 189.5 208.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped
in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in
2027-2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices
from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In
addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline
rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods
used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that
the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-
GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal
government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Aa
reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized
benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability
to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L
of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.
D. Conclusion
DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the
significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to
technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are
already commercially available for all product classes covered by this
proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the
benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the
burdens of the proposed standards. That conclusion remains true under
any reasonable analytical assumption--i.e., the proposed standards are
net beneficial under any discount rate (both for climate and non-
climate benefits and costs), any cost scenario, and any other scenario
DOE analyzed. Moreover, because consumer operating cost savings and
health benefits alone greatly exceed costs under all such assumptions
and scenarios, DOE noted that this conclusion does not depend on
climate benefits (though DOE's estimates of climate benefits remain
important and robust).
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking products is $32.5
million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $100.8 million in reduced product operating costs, $67.0
million in climate benefits and $64.9 million in health benefits. The
net monetized benefit amounts to $200.3 million per year.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\12\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have substantial energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with
[[Page 6824]]
relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance
of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings of 0.46 quads FFC, the equivalent of
the electricity use of 19 million residential homes in one year. The
NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy savings is $0.65
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.71 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions
associated with these energy savings are 21.9 Mt of CO2, 2.2
thousand tons of SO2, 51.8 thousand tons of NOX,
0.01 tons of Hg, 244.9 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.1
thousand tons of N2O. The estimated monetary value of the
climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is $1.17 billion. The
estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced
SO2 and NOX emissions is $0.61 billion using a 7-
percent discount rate and $1.63 billion using a 3-percent discount
rate. As such, DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the
proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these
tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document
and the accompanying technical support document (``TSD'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as
potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking.
However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of
the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the
projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in
response to this document and related information collected and
analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt
energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either
higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of
level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
consumer conventional cooking products.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include consumer
conventional cooking products, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(10)). EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these
products (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)), and directs DOE to conduct future
rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(h)(2)). EPCA further provides that, not later than six years after
the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR'') including new proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)).
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)). DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with
the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42
U.S.C. 6297(d)).
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(r)). Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE
test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products
comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under
EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy
use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) & 42 U.S.C.
6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine
whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for conventional cooking
tops appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'')
part 430, subpart B, appendix I1 (``appendix I1''). There are currently
no DOE test procedures for conventional ovens.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including consumer conventional
cooking products. Any new or amended standard for a covered product
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) & 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt
any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by
rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). In deciding whether a proposed
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). DOE must make this determination after receiving
comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on
the consumers of the products subject to such standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the
imposition of the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to
[[Page 6825]]
result from the imposition of the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)).
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)).
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)). Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an
amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4)).
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE
determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)). In determining whether a performance-related feature
justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must
consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and
other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a
standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher
or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)).
Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and
off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)). Specifically, when DOE
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)). DOE's current test procedures for conventional
cooking tops address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this
rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended
energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops that it may
adopt. As discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE does not
have a current test procedure for conventional ovens. As a result, a
performance standard that addresses standby mode and off mode energy
use is not feasible for conventional ovens. However, in this SNOPR, DOE
is proposing to adopt prescriptive design requirements for the control
system of conventional ovens that would address standby mode and off
mode energy use.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on April 8, 2009 (``April 2009 Final
Rule''), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking products that prohibits constant burning
pilots for all gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking products both
with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on and after
April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. These standards are set forth in DOE's
regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)-(2).
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Conventional Cooking
Products
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (``NAECA''),
Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for
gas cooking products, requiring gas ranges and ovens with an electrical
supply cord that are manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, not to
be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. (42 U.S.C.
6295(h)(1)). NAECA also directed DOE to conduct two cycles of
rulemakings to determine if more stringent or additional standards were
justified for kitchen ranges and ovens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)).
DOE undertook the first cycle of these rulemakings and published a
final rule on September 8, 1998, which found that no standards were
justified for conventional electric cooking products at that time. 63
FR 48038. In addition, partially due to the difficulty of conclusively
demonstrating at that time that elimination of standing pilots for
conventional gas cooking products without an electrical supply cord was
economically justified, DOE did not include amended standards for
conventional gas cooking products in the final rule. 63 FR 48038,
48039-48040. For the second cycle of rulemakings, DOE published the
April 2009 Final Rule amending the energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking products to prohibit constant burning
pilots for all gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking products both
with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on or after
April 9, 2012. DOE decided to not adopt energy conservation standards
pertaining to the cooking efficiency of conventional electric cooking
products because it determined that such standards would not be
technologically feasible and economically justified at that time. 74 FR
16040, 16085.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ As part of the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE decided not to
adopt energy conservation standards pertaining to the cooking
efficiency of microwave ovens. DOE has since published a final rule
on June 17, 2013, adopting energy conservation standards for
microwave oven standby mode and off mode. 78 FR 36316. DOE is not
considering energy conservation standards for microwave ovens as
part of this proposed rule. A separate rulemaking is underway
addressing energy conservation standards for microwave ovens. See
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023/document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, EPCA requires that, not later than six years after the
issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
publish a NOPR proposing new standards or a notification of
determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)). On February 12, 2014, DOE published a request
for information (``RFI'') document (``February 2014 RFI'') to initiate
the mandatory review process imposed by EPCA. 79 FR 8337. In making
this determination, DOE must evaluate whether new or amended standards
would (1) yield a significant savings in energy use and (2) be both
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
On June 10, 2015, DOE published a NOPR (``June 2015 NOPR'')
proposing
[[Page 6826]]
new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional
ovens. 80 FR 33030. In the June 2015 NOPR, DOE noted that it was
deferring its decision regarding whether to adopt amended energy
conservation standards for conventional cooking tops, pending further
study. 80 FR 33030, 33038-33040.
On September 2, 2016, DOE published an SNOPR (``September 2016
SNOPR'') proposing new and amended energy conservation standards for
conventional cooking tops based on the amendments to the test procedure
as proposed in a test procedure SNOPR published on August 22, 2016
(``August 2016 TP SNOPR;'' 81 FR 57374). 81 FR 60784. In the September
2016 SNOPR, DOE also revised its proposal from the June 2015 NOPR for
conventional ovens from a performance-based standard to a prescriptive
standard given that DOE had proposed to repeal the test procedure for
conventional ovens in the August 2016 TP SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 60793-
60794. (The history of the test procedures for conventional cooking
tops and conventional ovens is discussed in greater detail in section
III.C of this document.)
On December 14, 2020, DOE published a notification of proposed
determination (``NOPD'') proposing not to amend the energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking products (``December 2020
NOPD''). 85 FR 80982. In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE initially
determined that amended energy conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products would not be economically justified and
would not result in a significant conservation of energy.
DOE held a public meeting on January 28, 2021, to solicit feedback
from stakeholders concerning the December 2020 NOPD, and received
comments in response to the December 2020 NOPD from the interested
parties listed in Table II.1.
Table II--December 2020 NOPD Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter(s) Abbreviation Docket No. Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Adkins............................ Adkins.................... 81 Individual.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM...................... 84 Trade Association.
Manufacturers.
Lamis Ahmad............................. Ahmad..................... 82 Individual.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San CA IOUs................... 89 Utilities.
Diego Gas and Electric, Southern
California Edison, collectively, the
California Investor-Owned Utilities.
GE Appliances........................... GEA....................... 85 Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Commenters.......... 87 Energy Organizations.
Consumer Federation of America, Natural
Resources Defense Council.
American Public Gas Association, Joint Gas Associations.... 86 Utility and Trade
American Gas Association. Association.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.... NEEA...................... 88 Efficiency Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\15\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the January 28, 2021, public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this SNOPR. Any oral comments provided during the
webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are
summarized and cited separately throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products. (Docket NO. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged as follows:
(commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Basis for This Proposed Rule
In the December 2020 NOPD, the tentative determination that amended
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products would not be economically justified and would not result in a
significant conservation of energy hinged, in significant part, on
DOE's proposal to screen out all identified technology options that
would improve the performance of gas cooking tops to efficiencies above
the baseline efficiency level. 85 FR 80982, 81003-81004. DOE noted in
the December 2020 NOPD that the estimates for energy savings associated
with a specific technology option for gas cooking tops, optimized
burner and grate design, may vary depending on the test procedure, and
thus DOE screened out this technology options from further analysis of
gas cooking tops. Id. at 85 FR 81004. As discussed in section III.C of
this document, at the time of the December 2020 NOPD, DOE had withdrawn
its test procedure for conventional cooking tops. However, DOE
additionally stated in the December 2020 NOPD that it would reevaluate
the energy savings associated with this technology option if it
considered performance standards in a future rulemaking. Id.
On August 22, 2022, DOE published a final rule (``August 2022 TP
Final Rule'') establishing a test procedure for conventional cooking
tops, at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I1, ``Uniform Test Method
for the Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking
Products.'' 87 FR 51492. As a result, in this SNOPR, DOE is
reevaluating the energy savings associated with the optimized burner
and grate design technology option for conventional gas cooking tops
and has tentatively found that amended energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional cooking products are economically justified
and would result in a significant conservation of energy.
As discussed in section III.C of this document, this SNOPR
specifically further differs from the September 2016 SNOPR in that the
performance standards evaluated for conventional cooking tops are based
on the new appendix I1 test procedure, rather than on the now-withdrawn
former appendix I.
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in appendix A regarding the NOPR stage for an energy
conservation standard rulemaking. Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A
specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will
vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but
will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this SNOPR, DOE has opted
to instead
[[Page 6827]]
provide a 60-day comment period. DOE requested comment in the February
2014 RFI on the technical and economic analyses and provided
stakeholders a 60-day comment period, after publishing the comment
period extension. Additionally, DOE provided a 30-day comment period
for the September 2016 SNOPR with an extension to 60 days, and a 75-day
comment period for the December 2020 NOPD. 81 FR 60784, 81 FR 67219, 85
FR 80982. DOE has relied on many of the same analytical assumptions and
approaches as used in the September 2016 SNOPR and December 2020 NOPD.
As such, DOE believes a 60-day comment period is appropriate and will
provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on
the proposed rule.
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues
raised by these commenters.
A. General Comments
This section summarizes general comments received from interested
parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.
GEA supported the comments submitted by AHAM and incorporated them
by reference. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 1).
AHAM stated that the 2017 statutory deadline to publish a final
rule regarding consumer conventional cooking product energy
conservation standards has passed, and that DOE should not hold this
rule open and should finalize a determination not to amend the
standard. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4). AHAM commented that it is
disingenuous of other commenters to simultaneously challenge DOE for
failing to timely meet an obligation while also urging it to further
delay meeting that same obligation. (Id.) AHAM added that, should DOE
believe energy conservation standards based on measured efficiency
could be justified once a reliable test procedure exists, DOE can
propose a rule at any time after the publication of the determination
not to amend the standard, although AHAM questioned whether such a
standard would be justified under EPCA. (Id.) AHAM further noted that
EPCA requires that DOE re-evaluate its determination not to amend the
standard within 3 years of the issuance of that determination. 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B). (Id.)
GEA commented that DOE's actions on this standard are long past
due. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2).
The CA IOUs urged DOE to consider the implications of the December
2020 NOPD on the Executive Order 13990 and the announcement that the
DOE would be re-examining the withdrawal of the cooking top test
procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 5)
In the most recent stage of this rulemaking, DOE published the
December 2020 NOPD in which it tentatively concluded that new and
amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products would not be economically justified and would not result in a
significant conservation of energy, in part because it was unable to
evaluate certain technology options for gas cooking tops in the absence
of a test procedure for these products. 85 FR 80982. The test procedure
established in the August 2022 TP Final Rule, discussed in more detail
in section III.C of this document, provides testing results upon which
these SNOPR analyses for conventional cooking tops were based. DOE
reevaluated its analyses as quickly as possible once the test procedure
was finalized. President Biden's Executive Order 13990, which addresses
the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gases, are discussed in
section IV.L of this document.
The Joint Gas Associations agreed with the DOE's tentative
determination in the December 2020 NOPD that no new standards are
justified. (Joint Gas Associations, No. 86 at pp. 2-3). The Joint Gas
Associations further supported the December 2020 NOPD's tentative
determination that neither of the February 2020 Process Rule's
thresholds for significant energy savings are met for TSL 2 or TSL 1
for consumer conventional cooking products. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters expressed concern that DOE indicated it was in
the process of revising the Process Rule, yet the Department cited the
energy savings thresholds from the February 2020 Process Rule to
justify the proposed determination of no amended standards. (Joint
Commenters, No. 87 at p. 1). The Joint Commenters added that with
billions of consumer savings at risk, DOE should not move forward with
this determination until DOE completed the indicated revisions to the
Process Rule. (Id.) The Joint Commenters further commented that DOE
should eliminate the energy savings thresholds as part of the Process
Rule revision in order to ensure that critical energy and utility bill
savings are not lost. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 2).
In evaluating the significance of the estimated energy savings for
the December 2020 NOPD, DOE applied a two-part numeric threshold test
that was then applicable under section 6(b) of appendix A to 10 CFR
part 430 subpart C (Jan. 1, 2021 edition).\16\ Specifically, the
threshold required that an energy conservation standard result in a
0.30 quads reduction in site energy use over a 30-year analysis period
or a 10-percent reduction in site energy use over that same period. See
85 FR 8626, 8670 (Feb. 14, 2020). In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE stated
that the estimated site energy savings at the max-tech level evaluated
at that time was 0.57 quads, which exceeded the 0.3-quads threshold,
but expressed concern that this TSL might result in the unavailability
of certain product types for conventional ovens because there would be
significant uncertainty as to whether commercial-style manufacturers
would be able to test their products in the absence of a DOE test
procedure for conventional ovens. 85 FR 80982, 81053. (See section
III.C of this document for discussion of the repeal of the conventional
oven test procedure.) DOE then evaluated the next lower TSL than max-
tech and estimated that it would save an estimated 0.22 quads of site
energy over the evaluation period, which would represent a 4.9-percent
decrease in the site energy use of the evaluated products. Id. That
estimated site energy savings would not reach the 0.3 quad-threshold or
the 10-percent site energy saving threshold enumerated in section 6(b)
of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C (Jan. 1, 2021 edition).
Accordingly, DOE tentatively determined in the December 2020 NOPD that
new or amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional
cooking products would not result in significant conservation of energy
and be economically justified. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ DOE established the numeric threshold test in section 6(b)
of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C in a final rule published
on February 14, 2020. 85 FR 8626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 13, 2021, DOE published in the Federal Register, a
final rule that amended appendix A. 86 FR 70892 (``December 2021 Final
Rule''). The December 2021 Final Rule, in part, removed the numeric
threshold in section 6(b) of appendix A for determining when the
significant energy savings criterion is met, reverting to DOE's prior
practice of making such determinations on a case-by-case basis. 86 FR
70892.
Adkins commented that many consumer cooking products are already
[[Page 6828]]
operating at near peak capabilities and added that introducing stronger
regulations on consumer cooking products would increase the cost of
these products for consumers, lowering consumption with little to no
positive environmental impact. (Adkins, No. 81 at p. 1)
Ahmad commented that DOE's tentative determination of no economic
justification for cooking products may still be valid because of a lack
of significant technological advancements since the September 2016
SNOPR. (Ahmad, No. 82 at p. 1)
AHAM stated that no significant changes have occurred to justify
new standards since the April 2009 Final Rule that determined that
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products were not justified. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4)
GEA stated that consumer conventional cooking products use little
energy compared to other DOE regulated products and therefore DOE's
limited resources are better served on products for whom greater energy
savings is feasible. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2) GEA supported DOE's proposed
determination not to amend standards. (Id.)
The Joint Gas Associations agreed with DOE's tentative
determination in the December 2020 NOPD that a potential amended
standard based on TSL 3 would result in a negative net present value, a
negative INPV range, a potential unavailability of certain product
types for conventional ovens, and a loss of certain functions that
provide utility to customers, and that a potential standard at TSL 3 is
not economically justified. (Joint Gas Associations, No. 86 at p. 3)
The Joint Gas Associations further stated that any potential positive
impacts from an amended standard at TSL 3 are not outweighed by these
estimated negative impacts. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters commented that, without the February 2020
Process Rule thresholds, adopting standards at TSL 2 from the December
2020 NOPD could provide full-fuel cycle savings of 0.6 quads and
consumer savings of up to $3.7 billion. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p.
2) The Joint Commenters added that adopting standards at the TSL 2 from
the December 2020 NOPD would provide full-fuel-cycle energy savings of
0.28 quads and NPV savings of up to $2 billion for electric smooth
element cooking tops with an incremental cost of only $3, and would
achieve full-fuel-cycle energy savings of 0.1 quads and NPV savings of
up to $730 million for self-cleaning freestanding conventional electric
ovens with an incremental cost of $1. (Id. referencing 85 FR 80982,
81049-81050).
NEEA commented that according to the 2015 RECS, while cooking
represents a small amount of overall home energy use (1.4 percent in
residential electricity use and 2.9 percent in residential gas use),
when combined with the potential individual unit savings for cooking
tops shown in the December 2020 NOPD and external testing, performance-
based standards for cooking tops could lead to significant national
energy savings. (NEEA, No. 88 at p. 3) NEEA noted that DOE's testing
showed that conventional gas cooking tops with similar average burner
input rates can vary in annual energy use by as much as 27 percent, and
conventional oven efficiency for units with similar input rates varied
by 11 percent and 19 percent for gas and electric units, respectively.
(Id. referencing 85 FR 80982, 81008-81009) NEEA also noted that DOE
found potential energy savings on average of 24 percent for induction
electric cooking tops compared to a baseline smooth element electric
cooking top. NEEA commented that this is in line with recent testing
conducted by the Food Service Technology Center,\17\ which found a 23-
percent efficiency improvement. (Id. referencing 85 FR 80982, 81035)
NEEA recommended that DOE proceed with updated standards for cooking
tops and conventional ovens once the test procedure has been updated,
commenting that this would allow DOE to consider performance-based
standards for cooking tops and conventional ovens that harness energy
efficiency opportunities, which could not be fully achieved through the
prescriptive standards considered in the December 2020 NOPD (Id.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Frontier Energy. Residential Cooktop Performance and Energy
Comparison Study. July 2019. Page 11. Available at
www.buildingdecarb.org/uploads/3/0/7/3/30734489/induction_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CA IOUs commented that, given the recent shift in consumer
behavior, there is a high likelihood that a reanalysis of the TSL 2
defined in the December 2020 NOPD based on more recent cooking
frequency data would lead to site savings greater than 0.3 quads,
exceeding the February 2020 Process Rule's significant energy savings
threshold. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at pp. 3-4)
EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standards
prescribed by DOE for any type (or class) of covered product be
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency (or
for certain products, water efficiency) which the Secretary determines
is technologically feasible and economically justified. Upon the
finalization of a new test procedure for consumer conventional cooking
products, DOE reevaluated its analysis from the December 2020 NOPD,
including its tentative determination at that time to screen out the
technology option for improved burner and grate design. DOE is updating
its tentative conclusions in this SNOPR to reflect the use of optimized
burners and grates on gas cooking tops to achieve higher efficiencies.
See section IV.A.2 and section IV.B of this document, as well as
chapters 3 and 4 of the TSD for this SNOPR for additional information
on this technology option and screening analysis. DOE also updated its
information regarding the prevalence of baseline technologies in
conventional ovens on the market. See section IV.F.8 of this document
and chapter 7 of the TSD for this SNOPR. Pursuant to these updates and
others outlined in this SNOPR, DOE revised its analysis regarding the
technological feasibility and economic justification of new and amended
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products and presents a summary of the results in section V of this
SNOPR.
B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
As discussed in section II.A of this document, 42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(10) of EPCA covers kitchen ranges and ovens, or ``cooking
products.'' DOE's regulations define ``cooking products'' as consumer
products that are used as the major household cooking appliances. They
are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or more of
the following sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy.
Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing one or
more surface units \18\ and/or one or more heating compartments. 10 CFR
430.2. DOE is not considering energy
[[Page 6829]]
conservation standards for microwave ovens as part of this proposed
rulemaking.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The term surface unit refers to burners for gas cooking
tops and electric resistance heating elements or inductive heating
elements for electric cooking tops.
\19\ See www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023/document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE defines a combined cooking product as a household cooking
appliance that combines a conventional cooking top and/or conventional
oven with other appliance functionality, which may or may not include
another cooking product (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I). In
this analysis, DOE is not treating combined cooking products as a
distinct product category and is not basing its product classes on such
a category. Instead, DOE is evaluating energy conservation standards
for conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens separately.
Because combined cooking products consist, in part, of a cooking top
and/or oven, the cooking top and oven standards would continue to apply
to the individual components of the combined cooking product.
As part of the 2009 standards rulemaking for consumer conventional
cooking products, DOE did not consider energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional gas cooking products with higher burner input
rates, including products marketed as ``commercial-style'' or
``professional-style,'' due to a lack of available data for determining
efficiency characteristics of those products. DOE considered such
products to be gas cooking tops with burner input rates greater than
14,000 British thermal units per hour (``Btu/h'') and gas ovens with
burner input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h. 74 FR 16040, 16054 (Apr.
8, 2009); 72 FR 64432, 64444-64445 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE also stated
that the DOE cooking products test procedures at that time may not
adequately measure performance of gas cooking tops and ovens with
higher burner input rates. 72 FR 64432, 64444-64445 (Nov. 15, 2007).
As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated that it tentatively
planned to consider energy conservation standards for all consumer
conventional cooking products, including commercial-style gas cooking
products with higher burner input rates. In addition, DOE stated that
it may consider developing test procedures for these products and
determine whether separate product classes are warranted. 79 FR 8337,
8340 (Feb. 12, 2014).
As discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE's new test
procedure for conventional cooking tops in appendix I1 measures the
energy use of commercial-style gas cooking tops with high burner input
rates. DOE also repealed the conventional oven test procedure in a
final rule published on December 16, 2016 (``December 2016 TP Final
Rule''). 81 FR 91418.
In the December 2020 NOPD, in the absence of Federal test
procedures to measure the energy use or energy efficiency of
conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens, DOE evaluated
prescriptive design requirements for the control system of conventional
electric smooth element cooking tops and conventional ovens, including
commercial-style ovens with higher burner input rates. 85 FR 80982,
80988. In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE stated that it would maintain the
existing prescriptive design requirements for all conventional gas
cooking products, noting that the current definitions for
``conventional cooking top'' and ``conventional oven'' in 10 CFR 430.2
already cover commercial-style gas cooking products with higher burner
input rates, as these products are household cooking appliances with
surface units or compartments intended for the cooking or heating of
food by means of a gas flame. Id. In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE did
not propose a separate product class for gas cooking tops and ovens
with higher burner input rates that are marketed as ``commercial-
style'' and did not propose separate definitions for these products.
Id.
Adkins supported higher standards for industrial cooking equipment
and stated that the degree of energy saved by an individual consumer is
minimal when compared to that of an entire business or corporation.
(Adkins, No. 81 at p. 1)
Ahmad commented that microwave ovens should be the subject of
amended energy conservation standards due to widespread use in the U.S.
(Ahmad, No. 82 at p. 1)
The scope of this rulemaking is limited to cooking products. As
defined in 10 CFR 430.2, ``cooking products'' are consumer products
that are used as the major household cooking appliances. They are
designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or more of the
following sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each
product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more
surface units and/or one or more heating compartments. Industrial
cooking equipment and microwave ovens are not in the scope of this
proposed rule.
In this SNOPR, DOE is proposing to define a portable conventional
cooking top as a conventional cooking top designed to be moved from
place to place. Using this definition, DOE is proposing that the
proposed standards for conventional cooking tops would apply to
portable models according to their means of heating (gas, electric open
(coil) element, or electric smooth element).
DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for portable
conventional cooking top and DOE's proposal to include portable
conventional cooking tops in the existing product classes. DOE also
seeks data and information on its initial determination not to
differentiate conventional cooking tops on the basis of portability
when considering product classes for this SNOPR analysis.
C. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE's
current energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products are prescriptive standards that prohibits constant burning
pilots for all gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking products both
with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on and after
April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. (See 10 CFR 430.32(j)(2).)
DOE established test procedures for consumer conventional cooking
products in a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 10,
1978. 43 FR 20108, 20120-20128. DOE revised its test procedures for
cooking products to more accurately measure their efficiency and energy
use, and published the revisions as a final rule in 1997. 62 FR 51976
(Oct. 3, 1997). These test procedure amendments included: (1) A
reduction in the annual useful cooking energy; (2) a reduction in the
number of self-clean oven cycles per year; and (3) incorporation of
portions of International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'')
Standard 705-1988, ``Methods for measuring the performance of microwave
ovens for household and similar purposes,'' and Amendment 2-1993 for
the testing of microwave ovens. Id. The test procedures for consumer
conventional cooking products established provisions for determining
estimated annual operating cost, cooking efficiency (defined as the
ratio of cooking energy output to cooking energy input), and energy
factor (defined as the ratio of annual useful cooking energy output to
total annual energy input). 10 CFR 430.23(i); appendix I. These
provisions
[[Page 6830]]
for consumer conventional cooking products were not used for compliance
with any energy conservation standards because the standards to date
have been design requirements; in addition, there is no EnergyGuide
\20\ labeling program for cooking products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For more information on the EnergyGuide labeling program,
see: consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-use-energyguide-label-shop-home-appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE subsequently conducted a rulemaking to address standby and off
mode energy consumption, as well as certain active mode (i.e., fan-only
mode) testing provisions, for consumer conventional cooking products,
satisfying the EPCA requirement that DOE include measures of standby
mode and off mode power in its test procedures for residential
products, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)). DOE
published a final rule on October 31, 2012 (``October 2012 TP Final
Rule''), adopting standby and off mode provisions. 77 FR 65942.
Prior to the June 2015 NOPR, DOE issued two notices requesting
comment on the test procedures for cooking products. On January 30,
2013, DOE published a NOPR (``January 2013 TP NOPR'') proposing
amendments to the cooking products test procedure in appendix I that
would allow for the testing of active mode energy consumption of
induction cooking tops; i.e., conventional cooking tops equipped with
induction heating technology for one or more surface units on the
cooking top. 78 FR 6232. DOE proposed to incorporate induction cooking
tops by amending the definition of ``conventional cooking top'' to
include induction heating technology. Furthermore, DOE proposed to
require for all cooking tops the use of test equipment compatible with
induction technology. Specifically, DOE proposed to replace the solid
aluminum test blocks specified at that time in the test procedure for
cooking tops with hybrid test blocks comprising two separate pieces: an
aluminum body and a stainless-steel base. 78 FR 6232, 6234.
On December 3, 2014, DOE issued a second notice requesting comment
on the test procedures for cooking products (``December 2014 TP
SNOPR''). 79 FR 71894. In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE modified its
proposal from the January 2013 TP NOPR in response to comments from
interested parties to specify different test equipment that would allow
for measuring the energy efficiency of induction cooking tops, and
would include an additional test block size for electric surface units
with large diameters (both induction and electric resistance). Id. In
addition, DOE proposed methods to test non-circular electric surface
units, electric surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones,
and full-surface induction cooking tops. Id. In the December 2014 TP
SNOPR, DOE also proposed amendments to add a larger test block size to
test gas cooking top burners with higher input rates. Id.
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed methods for
measuring conventional oven volume, clarification that the existing
oven test block must be used to test all ovens regardless of input
rate, and a method to measure the energy consumption and efficiency of
conventional ovens equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR 71894.
On July 2, 2015, DOE published a test procedure final rule (``July
2015 TP Final Rule'') adopting the test procedure amendments discussed
above for conventional ovens only. 80 FR 37954.
As discussed in the June 2015 NOPR for conventional ovens, DOE
received a significant number of comments raising issues with the
repeatability and reproducibility of the proposed hybrid test block
test method for cooking tops in response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR
and in separate interviews conducted with consumer conventional cooking
product manufacturers in February and March of 2015. 80 FR 33030,
33039-33040. A number of manufacturers that produce and sell products
in Europe supported the use of a water-heating test method and
harmonization with IEC Standard 60350-2 Edition 2, ``Household electric
appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Method for measuring performance'' \21\
(``IEC Standard 60350-2'') for measuring the energy consumption of
electric cooking tops. These manufacturers stated that the test methods
in IEC Standard 60350-2 are compatible with all electric cooking top
types, specify additional cookware diameters to account for the variety
of surface unit sizes on the market, and use test loads that represent
real-world cooking top loads. Efficiency advocates also recommended
that DOE require water-heating test methods to produce a measure of
cooking efficiency for conventional cooking tops that is more
representative of actual cooking performance than the hybrid test block
method. 80 FR 33030, 33039-33040. For these reasons, DOE decided to
defer its decision regarding adoption of energy conservation standards
for conventional cooking tops until a representative, repeatable and
reproducible test method for cooking tops was finalized. 80 FR 33030,
33040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Hob is the British English term for cooking top.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE published an SNOPR on August 22, 2016 (``August 2016 TP
SNOPR'') that proposed amendments to the test procedures for
conventional cooking tops. 81 FR 57374. Given the feedback from
interested parties discussed above and based on the additional testing
and analysis conducted for the test procedure rulemaking, in the August
2016 TP SNOPR, DOE withdrew its proposal for testing conventional
cooking tops with a hybrid test block. Instead, DOE proposed to amend
its test procedure to incorporate by reference the relevant sections of
European Standard EN 60350-2:2013 ``Household electric cooking
appliances Part 2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance'' \22\ (``EN
60350-2:2013''), which provide a water-heating test method to measure
the energy consumption of electric cooking tops. The test method
specifies the quantity of water to be heated in a standardized test
vessel whose size is selected based on the diameter of the surface unit
under test. The test vessels specified in EN 60350-2:2013 are
compatible with all cooking top technologies and surface unit diameters
available on the U.S. market. 81 FR 57374, 57381-57384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The test methods in EN 60350-2:2013 are based on the same
test methods in the draft version of IEC 60350-2 available at the
time of the December 2016 TP Final Rule. As noted in that final
rule, based on the few comments received during the development of
the draft, DOE expected that the IEC procedure, once finalized,
would retain the same basic test method as contained in EN 60350-
2:2013. 81 FR 91418, 91421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also proposed to extend the test methods provided in EN 60530-
2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of gas cooking tops by
correlating test equipment diameter to burner input rate, including
input rates that exceed 14,000 Btu/h. 81 FR 57374, 57385-57386. In
addition, DOE also proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to include
methods for both electric and gas cooking tops to calculate the annual
energy consumption (``AEC'') and integrated annual energy consumption
(``IAEC'') to account for the proposed water-heating test method. 81 FR
57374, 57387-57388. In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to repeal
the conventional oven test procedure. DOE determined that the
conventional oven test procedure may not accurately represent consumer
use as it favors conventional ovens with low thermal mass and does not
capture cooking performance-related benefits due to increased thermal
mass of the oven cavity. 81 FR 57374, 57378-57379.
[[Page 6831]]
As discussed previously, for the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
evaluated its proposed energy conservation standards for conventional
cooking tops based on the cooking top test procedure proposed in the
August 2016 TP SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 60797. For conventional ovens, due
to the uncertainties in analyzing a performance-based standard using
oven testing provisions that DOE proposed to remove from the test
procedure, as discussed previously, DOE proposed in the September 2016
SNOPR prescriptive design requirements for the control system of
conventional ovens. 81 FR 60784, 60794.
On December 16, 2016, DOE published a final rule repealing the test
procedures for conventional ovens, and adopting the test procedure
amendments for conventional cooking tops proposed in the August 2016 TP
SNOPR, with the following modifications:
Aligning the test methods for electric surface units with
flexible concentric cooking zones (also referred to as multi-ring
surface units) with the provisions in EN 60350-2:2013; \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ EN 60350-2:2013 requires testing of the largest measured
diameter of multi-ring surface units only, unless an additional test
vessel category is needed to meet the test vessel selection
requirements in EN 60350-2:2013. In that case, one of the smaller-
diameter settings of the multi-ring surface unit may be tested if it
fulfills the test vessel category requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarifying the simmering temperature requirements,
temperature sensor requirements, and surface unit diameter measurement;
and
Maintaining the existing installation requirements in
appendix I. 81 FR 91418.
The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.,
provides among other things, that ``[e]ach agency shall give an
interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of a rule.'' (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) DOE received a petition from AHAM
requesting that DOE reconsider its December 2016 TP Final Rule. In its
petition, AHAM requested that DOE undertake a rulemaking to withdraw
the test procedure for conventional cooking tops, while maintaining the
repeal of the oven test procedure that was part of the December 2016 TP
Final Rule. In the interim, AHAM sought an immediate stay of the
effectiveness of the December 2016 TP Final Rule, including the
requirement that manufacturers use the final test procedure to make
energy-related claims. In its petition, AHAM claimed that its analyses
showed that the test procedure is not representative for gas cooking
tops and, for gas and electric cooking tops, has such a high level of
variation it will not produce accurate results for certification and
enforcement purposes and will not assist consumers in making purchasing
decisions based on energy efficiency. DOE published AHAM's petition on
April 25, 2018, and requested comments and information on whether DOE
should undertake a rulemaking to consider the proposal contained in the
petition. 80 FR 17944.
On August 18, 2020, DOE published a final rule (``August 2020 TP
Final Rule'') withdrawing the test procedure for conventional cooking
tops after evaluating new information and data produced by AHAM and
other interested parties that suggested that the test procedure yields
inconsistent results that are indicative of the test not being
representative of energy use or efficiency during an average use cycle.
85 FR 50757. Testing conducted by DOE and outside parties using the
test procedure yielded inconsistent results. 85 FR 50757, 50763. DOE
had not identified the cause of the inconsistencies and noted that its
data to date was limited. Id. DOE concluded, therefore, that the test
procedure was not representative of energy use or efficiency during an
average use cycle. Id. DOE also determined that it would be unduly
burdensome to leave the test procedure in place and require cooking top
tests to be conducted using that test method without further study to
resolve those inconsistencies. Id.
As discussed, DOE published the August 2022 TP Final Rule
establishing a test procedure for conventional cooking tops, at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix I1, ``Uniform Test Method for the
Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking Products.'' 87
FR 51492. The test procedure adopted the latest version of the relevant
industry standard published by IEC, Standard 60350-2 (Edition 2.0 2017-
08), ``Household electric cooking appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Methods for
measuring performance'' (``IEC 60350-2:2017''), for electric cooking
tops with modifications including adapting the test method to gas
cooking tops, normalizing the energy use of each test cycle to a
consistent final water temperature, and including a measurement of
standby mode and off mode energy use. Id.
Under EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must
include, where applicable, test procedures prescribed in accordance
with the test procedure provisions of the Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(r)). As
discussed previously, DOE repealed the conventional oven test procedure
and is evaluating new prescriptive design requirements for the control
system of conventional ovens, while proposing to maintain the existing
prescriptive design requirements for conventional gas ovens. As a
result, the prescriptive design requirements would not require
manufacturers to test using the DOE test procedure to certify
conventional ovens.
Furthermore, since DOE is proposing to adopt prescriptive design
requirements that would not require a test procedure for conventional
ovens, DOE tentatively concludes that no test procedures for
conventional ovens are needed at this time. If finalized, this
tentative determination would satisfy the EPCA requirement at 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A) that requires the Secretary to review test procedures for
all covered products, including conventional ovens, every 7 years and
either amend those test procedures or publish in the Federal Register
of a determination not to amend the test procedure. The last time the
conventional ovens test procedure was evaluated was as part of the
December 2016 Final Rule, which repealed the existing test procedure
for conventional ovens. Therefore, if DOE were to proceed, it would
need to finalize its determination by December 16, 2023.
AHAM stated that the absence of a test procedure to measure
efficiency for cooking tops and conventional ovens is sufficient
grounds upon which to justify a determination not to amend standards
beyond the existing design standards (AHAM, No. 84 at pp. 2-3). AHAM
added that EPCA does not allow DOE to prescribe amended or new
standards without a final test procedure in place (Id. referencing 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)).
EPCA's requirement that the Secretary may not prescribe an amended
or new standard if a test procedure has not been prescribed does not
apply to dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, and kitchen
ranges and ovens, the subject of this rulemaking (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A)).
AHAM commented that it was working on a test procedure to measure
the efficiency of cooking tops and conventional ovens (AHAM, No. 84 at
p. 3). AHAM added that DOE and some efficiency advocates have been
included in the task force that is developing the test. (Id.) AHAM
stated that the goals of its cooking top and conventional oven test
procedures are to address the technical issues in the previous cooking
top and conventional oven test procedures, which ultimately resulted in
their withdrawal, and to develop new test procedures that are accurate,
repeatable, and reproducible. (Id.) AHAM suggested that DOE would be
[[Page 6832]]
able to adopt both procedures in their entirety in a future rulemaking.
(Id.)
In response to DOE's notification of the White House Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') that it would review its withdrawal of
the cooking top test procedure, AHAM urged DOE not to consume its
resources in considering to reinstate the withdrawn cooking top test
procedure and stated that DOE should continue to work with AHAM and
efficiency advocates to develop a new collaborative cooking top test
procedure which would provide certainty as DOE proceeds with a future
standards rulemaking process, shorten the time needed to finalize a
test method, and satisfy the goals of Executive Order 13990. (AHAM, No.
84 at p. 3)
GEA supported DOE's proposed determination not to amend standards
because there is no current test procedure for consumer conventional
cooking products. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2) GEA stated that the previously
withdrawn test procedures were not reliable or reproducible. (Id.) GEA
stated that it is working closely with the AHAM task force dedicated to
developing a reliable, repeatable, and reproducible test procedure for
consumer conventional cooking products. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters stated that DOE must establish test procedures
for cooking products and complete the revision of the Process Rule
prior to proceeding with a determination for cooking products
standards. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 1) The Joint Commenters
noted that performance-based standards have the potential to achieve
significantly greater savings than prescriptive requirements, and that
DOE should focus on establishing test procedures rather than use
repealed test procedures to evaluate potential standard levels. (Id.)
NEEA recommended that DOE conduct further testing as needed and
issue updated test procedures for both cooking tops and conventional
ovens, given the significant potential energy savings from performance
standards for both product categories. (NEEA, No. 88 at pp. 1-2) NEEA
recommended that DOE conduct additional testing to resolve the
discrepancies found during former testing and develop a revised test
procedure for conventional cooking tops as soon as possible. (NEEA, No.
88 at p. 2) NEEA stated that all concerns submitted in AHAM's petition
for the withdrawal of the cooking top test procedure (concern over the
lack of defined tolerance for staying ``as close as possible'' to 194
degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F'') in the test procedure, variability in
energy consumption during the simmer phase, and variability in
determining the turn down temperature and setting) can be addressed by
setting appropriate tolerances on these variables. (Id.) NEEA further
noted that the test method that was referenced in the 2016 test
procedure, EN 60350-2-2013, has been updated since the December 2016 TP
Final Rule and the revised test method may serve as an additional
resource in developing an updated test procedure that is
representative, repeatable, and reproducible. (NEEA, No. 88 at pp. 2-3)
NEEA recommended that DOE consider ASTM Standard F1521 in updating the
test procedure, which has been used by the Food Service Technology
Center to conduct testing on conventional cooking top performance and
efficiency and is currently being updated for ASTM Committee F26 on
Food Service Equipment. (NEEA, No. 88 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs believe that the withdrawn cooking top test procedure
is adequately repeatable and that it should be re-examined. (CA IOUs,
No. 89 at p. 2) The CA IOUs stated they believe the discrepancies
presented in the AHAM Withdrawal Petition are, in part, due to specific
test method employed during AHAM's testing. (Id.) The CA IOUs continued
that because the test data which was used to withdraw the test
procedure did not use the ambient condition \24\ specifications of the
test procedure in question, DOE should pursue robust round robin
testing to uncover the true reproducibility values associated with the
test procedure. (Id.) In the August 2020 TP Final Rule, DOE cited
authority to withdraw the cooking products test procedure under 42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), noting that ``DOE has the authority to withdraw a
test procedure that is not representative of an average use cycle or
period of use and is unduly burdensome to conduct.'' (Id.) In response,
the CA IOUs commented that they believe the authority to act on an
unrepresentative test procedure lies in 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2), which
only grants DOE the authority to prescribe or amend a test procedure,
not to withdraw a test procedure in its entirety. (Id.) The CA IOUs
requested that DOE consider reinstating the test procedure and using
the performance-based analysis therein. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ AHAM's petition noted that some of the test labs
participating in the round robin testing were unable to meet the
ambient conditions of ``2 [deg]F'' specified in the DOE
test procedure, and therefore ran tests at 5 [deg]F in
their laboratories. (EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004-0003) DOE notes that the
test procedure finalized in the December 2016 TP Final Rule required
ambient conditions of 2 [deg]Celsius (``[deg]C''), which
is equivalent to 5 [deg]F, the specification used by
AHAM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE acknowledges that a test procedure is necessary to evaluate the
performance of, and to adopt performance standards for, cooking tops.
As discussed previously, since the December 2020 NOPD, DOE has
published a test procedure final rule establishing test procedures for
cooking tops. In this SNOPR, DOE has analyzed performance-based
standards for cooking tops, measured according to new appendix I1.
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in
commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix
A.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies.
Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B of
this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for
consumer conventional cooking products, particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the
standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the
screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the TSD for
this SNOPR.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in
[[Page 6833]]
energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE
determined the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'')
improvements in energy efficiency for consumer conventional cooking
products, using the design parameters for the most efficient products
available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels
that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C
of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (i.e., TSL), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to consumer conventional cooking
products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of
compliance with the proposed standards (2027-2056).\25\ The savings are
measured over the entire lifetime of consumer conventional cooking
products purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE quantified the
energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy
consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case.
The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption
that reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the
absence of new or amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each
product class. The TSLs considered for this SNOPR are described in
section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended or
new standards for consumer conventional cooking products. The NIA
spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document)
calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy
directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For
electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary
energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to
generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the
primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy
savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The
FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels),
and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy
conservation standards.\26\ DOE's approach is based on the calculation
of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered
products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see
section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\27\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14,
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70924).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative
FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions,
and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other
factors. DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the
proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)). The
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven
factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2)
cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of
the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP
analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific
[[Page 6834]]
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As
discussed in section III.E of this document, DOE uses the NIA
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data
available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration
in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result
from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the
Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule,
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed
rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of
Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this issue. DOE will
publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the
final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the
competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule.
In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ
regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for
information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy
savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements
to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system.
Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced
costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity
system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how
standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as
discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production and
use, including in-home emissions reductions experienced by consumers,
and their families. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section
IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in
section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value
of climate and health benefits from certain emissions reductions
resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of
this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP
analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In
addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation
is discussed in section IV.F.9 of this proposed rule.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regard to consumer conventional cooking products.
Separate paragraphs address each component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer
[[Page 6835]]
costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation
standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer impacts of
potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the
DOE website for this rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document. Additionally, DOE used output from the latest
version of the Energy Information Administration's (``EIA's'') Annual
Energy Outlook (``AEO''), a widely known energy projection for the
United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope
of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of consumer conventional
cooking products. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are
summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the TSD for this
SNOPR for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may establish separate standards for a group of covered products (i.e.,
establish a separate product class) if DOE determines that separate
standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE
determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related
features that justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In
making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies
a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to
the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are
appropriate. (Id.)
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
During the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking for
cooking products, DOE evaluated product classes for conventional
cooking tops based on energy source (i.e., gas or electric). These
distinctions initially yielded two conventional cooking top classes:
(1) gas cooking tops; and (2) electric cooking tops. For electric
cooking tops, DOE determined that the ease of cleaning smooth elements
provides enhanced consumer utility over coil elements. Because smooth
elements can use more energy than coil elements, DOE defined two
separate product classes for electric cooking tops. DOE defined the
following product classes for consumer conventional cooking tops in the
April 2009 Final Rule TSD (``2009 TSD''): \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The TSD from the previous residential cooking products
standards rulemaking is available at: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2006-STD-0127/document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric cooking tops--low or high wattage open (coil)
elements;
Electric cooking tops--smooth elements; and
Gas cooking tops--conventional burners.
Induction Heating
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to maintain the product
classes for conventional cooking tops from the previous standards
rulemaking, as discussed. 85 FR 80982, 80995. DOE also proposed to
consider induction heating as a technology option for electric smooth
element cooking tops rather than as a separate product class. Id. DOE
noted that induction heating provides the same basic function of
cooking or heating food as heating by gas flame or electric resistance,
and that the installation options available to consumers are also the
same for both cooking products with induction and with electric
resistance heating. Id. In addition, in considering whether there are
any performance-related features that justify a higher energy use
standard to establish a separate product class, DOE noted in the
September 2016 SNOPR that the utility of speed of cooking, ease of
cleaning, and requirements for specific cookware for induction cooking
tops do not appear to be uniquely associated with higher energy use
compared to other electric smooth element cooking tops with electric
resistance heating elements. 81 FR 60784, 60801.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding induction technologies
in response to the December 2020 NOPD.
In addition to the reasons presented in the December 2020 NOPD and
discussed previously, DOE recognizes that induction cooking tops are
only compatible with ferromagnetic cooking vessels. However, DOE does
not identify any consumer utility unique to any specific type of
cookware that would warrant establishing separate product classes. As
discussed in chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR, DOE considered the
cost of replacing cookware as part of the LCC analysis. DOE also
conducted standby testing on full-surface induction cooking tops. Based
on DOE's testing, the sensors required to detect the presence of a pot
placed on the cooking surface do not remain active while the product is
in standby mode. In addition, DOE notes that the standby power required
for the tested model (0.25 watts (``W'')) was below the average standby
power for other electric cooking tops in DOE's test sample (2.25 W).
For these reasons, DOE is not considering a separate product class for
induction cooking products.
Commercial-Style Cooking Tops
Based on DOE's review of conventional gas cooking tops available on
the market, DOE determined for December 2020 NOPD that products
marketed as commercial-style cannot be distinguished from standard
residential-style products based on performance characteristics or
consumer utility. 85 FR 80982, 80995. While conventional gas cooking
tops marketed as commercial-style have more than one burner rated above
14,000 Btu/h and cast-iron grates, approximately 50 percent of cooking
top models marketed as residential-style also have one or more burners
rated above 14,000 Btu/h and cast-iron grates. Id.
As part of the December 2020 NOPD, DOE considered whether separate
product classes for commercial-style gas cooking tops with higher
burner input rates are warranted by comparing the test energy
consumption of individual surface units in a sample of cooking tops
tested by DOE. Id. For the September 2016 SNOPR analysis, DOE conducted
testing of gas surface units in a sample of twelve gas cooking tops,
which included six products marketed as commercial-style, according to
the test procedure established in the December 2016 TP Final Rule and
determined that there was no statistically significant correlation
between burner input rate and the ratio of surface unit energy
consumption to
[[Page 6836]]
test load mass \29\ for cooking tops marketed as either residential-
style or commercial-style. 81 FR 60783, 60801-60802. DOE noted that its
testing showed that this efficiency ratio for gas cooking tops is more
closely related to burner and grate design rather than input rate. Id.
at 81 FR 60802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Because the mass of the test load depends on the input rate
of the burner, the test energy consumption must be normalized for
comparison. The higher the ratio of test energy consumption to test
load mass, the less efficient the surface unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE recognized in the December 2020 NOPD that the presence of
certain features, such as heavy cast-iron grates and multiple high-
input rate burners (``HIR burners''), may help consumers perceive a
difference between commercial-style and residential-style gas cooking
top performance. 85 FR 80982, 80996. However, DOE stated that it was
not aware of clearly defined and consistent design differences and
corresponding utility provided by commercial-style gas cooking tops as
compared to residential-style gas cooking tops. Id. Although DOE's
testing indicated there is a difference in energy consumption between
residential-style and commercial-style gas cooking tops, this
difference could not be correlated to any specific utility provided to
consumers. Id. Moreover, DOE stated that it is not aware of an industry
test standard that evaluates cooking performance and that would
quantify the utility provided by these products. Id. While DOE stated
in the December 2020 NOPD that it recognizes the presence of certain
commercial-style features described by manufacturers may allow
consumers to cook with a wide variety of cooking methods, manufacturers
have not provided consumer usage data demonstrating that consumers of
commercial-style cooking tops and residential-style cooking tops employ
significantly different cooking methods during a typical cooking cycle.
Id. Moreover, DOE also stated that manufacturers have not provided
evidence that consumers of commercial-style cooking tops would use more
burners on a cooking top during a single cooking cycle than consumers
of residential-style cooking tops. Id. DOE noted that there are many
residential-style cooking tops with one to two HIR burners and
continuous cast-iron grates that provide consumers with the ability to
sear food at high temperatures and simmer at low temperatures. Id. For
these reasons, DOE did not propose in the December 2020 NOPD to
establish a separate product class for gas cooking tops marketed as
commercial-style or conventional gas cooking tops with higher burner
input rates. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding commercial-style gas
cooking tops in response to the December 2020 NOPD.
For this SNOPR analysis, DOE further considered whether separate
product classes for commercial-style cooking tops are warranted by
comparing the test energy consumption of burners in a sample of cooking
tops tested by DOE according to new appendix I1. DOE measured energy
consumption of gas burners in a sample of 24 gas cooking tops, which
included 11 products marketed as commercial-style. The number of
burners per cooking top ranged from four to six.
DOE's testing, as presented in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR,
showed that energy consumption for gas cooking tops continues to be
more closely related to burner and grate design rather than input rate,
as it was in the September 2016 SNOPR analysis.
Based on both review of the market and comments from manufacturers,
DOE recognizes that the presence of certain features, such as heavy
cast-iron grates and multiple HIR burners, may help consumers perceive
a difference between commercial-style and residential-style gas cooking
top performance. However, DOE continues to not be aware of clearly
defined, consistent design differences and corresponding utility
provided by commercial-style gas cooking tops as compared to
residential-style gas cooking tops. Although DOE's testing indicates
there is a difference in energy consumption between residential-style
and commercial-style gas cooking tops, this difference could not be
correlated to any specific utility provided to consumers. In addition,
there are many residential-style cooking tops with one to two HIR
burners and continuous cast-iron grates that provide consumers with the
ability to sear food at high temperatures and simmer at low
temperatures. For these reasons, DOE is not evaluating a separate
product class for commercial-style gas cooking tops.
However, as discussed in sections IV.B.1.b and IV.C.1.a of this
document, DOE conducted its engineering analysis consistent with
products currently available on the market and only evaluated
efficiency levels for gas cooking tops that maintain the features
available in conventional cooking tops marketed as commercial-style
(e.g., at least one HIR burners, continuous cast-iron gates, etc.) that
may be used to differentiate these products in the marketplace.
Downdraft Cooking Tops
DOE is aware of conventional cooking tops, including the cooking
top portion of conventional ranges, which incorporate venting systems
which draw air, combustion products, steam, smoke, grease, odors, and
other cooking emissions across the surface of the cooking top and
through a vent ducted to the outdoors (``downdraft venting systems'').
The fan in downdraft venting systems may be activated automatically any
time the cooking top is being operated, through a control algorithm
that determines when the fan should be activated, or by means of
consumer selection. Because indoor air quality (``IAQ'') related to
cooking emissions is the subject of increasing attention and
concern,\30\ and because venting systems designed to specifically
exhaust the emissions from conventional cooking products have been
shown to significantly improve IAQ in homes,\31\ building codes in
certain local jurisdictions mandate the use of venting systems for
conventional cooking products.\32\ Although these venting systems may
be external to and separate from the conventional cooking product
(i.e., a vent hood over a conventional cooking top or a separate
downdraft venting unit built into a countertop), venting may also be
accomplished by means of a downdraft venting system incorporated
integrally in a conventional cooking top. According to DOE's review of
products on the market and discussions with manufacturers, the
prevalence of conventional cooking tops with integral downdraft venting
systems is increasing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See, for example, the discussion and recommendations
addressing ``Indoor Air Pollution from Cooking'' by the California
Air Resources Board, available at: ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/indoor-air-pollution-cooking.
\31\ Militello-Hourigan, R.E. and Miller, S.L., ``The impacts of
cooking and an assessment of indoor air quality in Colorado passive
and tightly constructed homes,'' Building and Environment, October
15, 2018. Vol. 144, pp. 573-582. Research indicated that fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations from cooking
activity in homes could be reduced by at least 75 percent through
the use of a directly exhausting conventional range hood.
\32\ See, for example, Section 15.16.020 ``Domestic Range Hoods
and Vents'' of the San Clemente, California, Mechanical Code, which
requires that ``[k]itchen range hoods shall be installed for cooking
facilities with an approved forced-draft system of ventilation
vented to the outside of the building.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy consumption of an integral downdraft venting system,
including the fan and, in some cases, a motor to move the inlet duct
into position during operation, increases the total annual energy
consumption of a conventional cooking top. At this time, DOE does not
have information
[[Page 6837]]
regarding the operating patterns or consumer usage of downdraft venting
systems in conventional cooking tops that would allow it to
characterize representative energy use. Therefore, recognizing the
importance of IAQ issues and rapidly evolving market demands, and so as
to not impede innovation in this area, DOE has not evaluated the energy
consumption of downdraft venting systems nor is proposing to establish
separate product classes for conventional cooking tops with downdraft
venting systems in this SNOPR. DOE will continue to collect information
on such cooking tops and may consider the impacts in a future
rulemaking.
Alternatively, DOE could consider specifying an adder to the
maximum allowable IAEC value in the energy conservation standards for
conventional cooking tops with a downdraft venting system, which would
account for the energy consumption of the fan and any motor operation
during active mode and any standby mode or off mode power consumption
specifically associated with the downdraft venting system.
DOE seeks comment on the impacts of downdraft venting systems on
energy consumption and associated data about such impacts. DOE further
requests comment on its proposal to not include the energy consumption
of any downdraft venting system in the energy conservation standards
for conventional cooking tops.
Single-Zone Conventional Cooking Tops
DOE notes that some conventional cooking tops are distributed in
commerce with only a single cooking zone with a relatively high input
power for electric cooking tops or high burner input rate for gas
cooking tops. Single-cooking zone cooking tops do not provide the
ability for consumers to cook multiple food loads at the same time and,
particularly for gas cooking tops, may not operate over the full range
of input rates associated with all typical cooking processes for which
a conventional cooking top is used (e.g., boiling, saut[eacute]ing,
simmering, reheating) or accommodate the complete range of typical
cookware sizes. To achieve this full functionality, conventional
cooking tops with single cooking zones are typically used in
conjunction with one or more additional conventional cooking tops to
provide the consumer with the choice of the number and type of cooking
zones to use. Indeed, DOE observes that manufacturers of single-zone
cooking tops that are not portable conventional cooking tops also
typically manufacture and market comparable dual-zone cooking tops with
similar construction and design features, and consumers may choose to
install non-portable single-zone cooking units in combination with one
or more of such comparable dual-zone units to achieve full cooking
functionality. As a result, DOE expects that evaluating the IAEC of a
single-zone non-portable cooking top by itself would not be
representative of the average use of the product, and therefore
proposes that a more representative value of IAEC would be based on a
tested configuration of the typical combination of a single-zone
cooking top paired with one or more additional cooking tops, such that
the combination of conventional cooking tops in aggregate provides
complete functionality to the consumer.
Based on DOE's review of commercially available products, single-
zone and dual-zone non-portable cooking tops typically range in width
from 12 inches to 15 inches; DOE therefore proposes that the most
representative pairing for the tested configuration of a single-zone
cooking top would be the combination of one single-zone cooking top and
one comparable dual-zone cooking top, because the overall width of the
combination would not exceed the width of typical conventional cooking
tops with four to six cooking zones (24 inches to 36 inches) and
because this is the minimum number of such cooking tops that would
ensure complete functionality as previously described. Based on its
expectation that consumers will select, to the extent possible,
matching products for this combination, DOE proposes to define the
tested configuration of a single-zone non-portable cooking top as the
single-zone unit along with the same manufacturer's dual-zone non-
portable cooking top unit within the same product class and with
similar design characteristics (e.g., construction materials, user
interface), and use the same heating technology (i.e., gas flame,
electric resistive heating, or electric inductive heating) and energy
source (e.g., voltage, gas type). DOE expects that these products
comprising the test configuration typically would be marketed as being
within the same ``product line'' by manufacturers. In instances where
the manufacturer's product line contains more than one dual-zone non-
portable cooking top unit, DOE proposes that the dual-zone unit with
the least energy consumption, as measured using appendix I1, be
selected for the tested configuration, which along with the single-zone
counterpart, would span the full range of expected per-cooking zone
energy efficiency performance.
In the approach DOE is proposing, the representative IAEC of the
single-zone non-portable cooking top would factor in the performance of
the two additional cooking zones included in the dual-zone cooking top
that is part of the tested configuration. That is, the IAEC would be
based on the average active mode performance of the three cooking zones
comprising the tested configuration. Because the single-zone non-
portable cooking top contains one of the three burners, while the
comparable dual-zone cooking top contains two, DOE additionally
proposes that the IAEC of the single-zone non-portable cooking top unit
under consideration be calculated as the weighted average of the
measured IAEC of the single-zone cooking top and the IAEC dual-zone
cooking top in the tested configuration, using the number of cooking
zones as the basis for the weighting factors; i.e., the single-zone
IAEC would have a weighting of \1/3\ and the dual-zone IAEC would have
a weighting of \2/3\. Recognizing that the dual-zone cooking top in the
tested configuration would already be separately tested to determine
its IAEC value for certification purposes, to minimize testing burden
associated with this approach, DOE is proposing that the represented
IAEC value of the dual-zone cooking top (determined separately) would
be used in the calculation of the single-zone cooking top's represented
IAEC value (i.e., DOE is not requiring the dual-zone cooking top to be
tested again for the purpose of determining the represented IAEC value
of the single-zone cooking top). DOE expects that this approach will
produce results that are most representative for the tested
configuration. Further, DOE proposes that if there is no dual-zone non-
portable cooking top within the same product class and with similar
construction and design features as the single-zone non-portable
cooking top being tested, then consumers are likely to purchase and
install the single-zone cooking top for use on its own; in that case,
the most representative IAEC of the single-zone cooking top is the IAEC
of that product as measured according to appendix I1.
DOE requests comment on its proposed tested configuration and
determination of representative IAEC for single-zone non-portable
cooking tops.
DOE additionally proposes that a cooking top basic model is an
individual cooking top model and does not include any combinations of
cooking top models that may be installed together. Accordingly, as part
of DOE's proposal, each individual cooking top model that may be
installed
[[Page 6838]]
in combination must be rated as a separate basic model, and any
combination of such cooking top models that are typically installed in
combination does not itself need to have a separate representation as
its own basic model. In other words, DOE does not expect combinations
to be separately represented or certified to the Department as their
own basic models. This proposal is consistent with the current
definition of a basic model at 10 CFR 430.2, which specifies that basic
model includes all units of a given type of covered product (or class
thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer; having the same primary
energy source; and, which have essentially identical electrical,
physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect
energy consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, or water
efficiency. Therefore, DOE believes this clarification is helpful to
provide specific context for cooking tops, but DOE is not proposing
specific amendments to the basic model definition in this rule.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to not define ``basic model''
with respect to cooking products or cooking tops, and on possible
definitions for ``basic model'' with respect to cooking products or
cooking tops that could be used if DOE were to determine such a
definition is necessary.
b. Conventional Ovens
During the first energy conservation standards rulemaking for
cooking products, DOE evaluated product classes for conventional ovens
based on energy source (i.e., gas or electric). These distinctions
initially yielded two conventional oven product classes: (1) gas ovens;
and (2) electric ovens. DOE more recently determined that the type of
oven-cleaning system is a utility feature that affects performance. DOE
found that standard ovens and ovens using a catalytic continuous-
cleaning process use roughly the same amount of energy. On the other
hand, self-clean ovens use a pyrolytic process that provides enhanced
consumer utility with lower overall energy consumption as compared to
either standard or catalytically lined ovens. Therefore, in the April
2009 Final Rule analysis described in the 2009 TSD, DOE defined the
following product classes for conventional ovens:
Electric ovens--standard oven with or without a catalytic
line;
Electric ovens--self-clean oven;
Gas ovens--standard oven with or without a catalytic line;
and
Gas ovens--self-clean oven.
Self-Cleaning Technology
Based on DOE's review of conventional gas ovens available on the
U.S. market, and on manufacturer interviews and testing conducted as
part of the engineering analysis, DOE noted in the June 2015 NOPR that
the self-cleaning function of a self-clean oven may employ methods
other than a high-temperature pyrolytic cycle to perform the cleaning
action.\33\ 80 FR 33030, 33043. DOE clarified that a conventional self-
clean electric or gas oven is an oven that has a user-selectable mode
separate from the normal baking mode, not intended to heat or cook
food, which is dedicated to cleaning and removing cooking deposits from
the oven cavity walls. Id. As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
stated that it is not aware of any differences in consumer behavior in
terms of the frequency of use of the self-clean function that would be
predicated on the type of self-cleaning technology rather than on
cleaning habits or cooking usage patterns that are not dependent on the
type of technology. 81 FR 60784, 60804. As a result, DOE did not
consider establishing separate product classes based on the type of
self-cleaning technology in the December 2020 NOPD. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ DOE noted that it is aware of a type of self-cleaning oven
that uses a proprietary oven coating and water to perform a self-
clean cycle with a shorter duration and at a significantly lower
temperature setting. The self-cleaning cycle for these ovens, unlike
catalytically-lined standard ovens that provide continuous cleaning
during normal baking, still have a separate self-cleaning mode that
is user-selectable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed previously, DOE is not considering
separate product classes based on the type of self-cleaning technology.
DOE welcomes data on the consumer usage patterns of pyrolytic
versus non-pyrolytic self-cleaning functions in conventional ovens, and
requests comment on its preliminary determination that self-cleaning
technologies do not warrant separate product class considerations.
Commercial-Style Ovens
With regard to gas oven burner input rates, DOE noted in the June
2015 NOPR that based on its review of the consumer conventional gas
ovens available on the market, residential-style gas ovens typically
have an input rate of 16,000 to 18,000 Btu/h, whereas residential gas
ovens marketed as commercial-style typically have burner input rates
ranging from 22,500 to 30,000 Btu/h.\34\ 80 FR 33030, 33043. Additional
review of both the residential-style and commercial-style gas oven
cavities indicated that there is significant overlap in oven cavity
volume between the two oven types. Id. Standard residential-style gas
oven cavity volumes range from 2.5 to 5.6 cubic feet (``ft\3\'') and
gas ovens marketed as commercial-style have cavity volumes ranging from
3.0 to 6.0 ft\3\. Id. Sixty percent of the commercial-style models
surveyed had cavity volumes between 4.0 and 5.0 ft\3\, while fifty
percent of the standard models had cavity volumes between 4.0 and 5.0
ft\3\. Id. The primary differentiating factor between the two oven
types was burner input rate, which is greater than 22,500 Btu/h for
commercial-style gas ovens. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ However, DOE noted that many gas ranges, while marketed as
commercial- or professional-style and having multiple surface units
with high input rates, did not have a gas oven with a burner input
rate above 22,500 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE conducted testing for the June 2015 NOPR using the version of
the test procedure later adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule to
determine whether commercial-style gas ovens with higher burner input
rates warrant establishing a separate product class. DOE evaluated the
cooking efficiency of eight conventional gas ovens, including five
ovens with burners rated at 18,000 Btu/h or less and the remaining
three with burner input rates ranging from 27,000 Btu/h to 30,000 Btu/
h. Id. DOE's testing showed that the measured cooking efficiencies for
ovens with burner input rates above 22,500 Btu/h were lower than for
ovens with ratings below 22,500 Btu/h, even after normalizing cooking
efficiency to a fixed cavity volume. Id. at 80 FR 33044. DOE also noted
that the conventional gas ovens with higher burner input rates in its
test sample were marketed as commercial-style and had greater total
thermal mass, including heavier racks and thicker cavity walls, even
after normalizing for cavity volume. Id. DOE's testing of a 30,000 Btu/
h oven suggested that much of the energy input to commercial-style
ovens with higher burner input rates goes to heating the added mass of
the cavity, rather than the test load, resulting in relatively lower
measured efficiency when measured according to the test procedure
adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. Id. DOE also investigated the
time it took each oven in the test sample to heat the test load to a
final test temperature of 234 [deg]F above its initial temperature, as
specified in the DOE test procedure in appendix I at the time of the
testing. Id. at 80 FR 33045. DOE's testing showed that gas ovens with
burner input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h do not heat the test load
significantly faster than the
[[Page 6839]]
ovens with lower burner input rates, and two out of the three units
with the higher burner input rates took longer than the average time to
heat the test load. Id. Therefore, DOE concluded in the June 2015 NOPR
that there is no unique utility associated with faster cook times that
is provided by gas ovens with burner input rates greater than 22,500
Btu/h. Id.
Based on DOE's testing, reverse engineering, and additional
discussions with manufacturers, DOE posited in the June 2015 NOPR that
the major differentiation between conventional gas ovens with lower
burner input rates and those with higher input rates, including those
marketed as commercial-style, was design and construction related to
aesthetics rather than improved cooking performance. Id. Further, DOE
did not identify any unique utility conferred by commercial-style gas
ovens. For the reasons discussed above, DOE did not propose in the June
2015 NOPR to establish a separate product class for conventional gas
ovens with higher burner input rates. Id.
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, to further address whether
commercial-style ovens provide a unique utility that would warrant
establishing a separate product class, DOE conducted additional
interviews with manufacturers of commercial-style cooking products and
reviewed additional commercial-style test data. 81 FR 60783, 60805-
60806. While these data demonstrated a difference in energy consumption
between residential-style and commercial-style ovens when measured
according to the test procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule,
this difference could not be correlated to any specific utility
provided to consumers. Id. at 60806. Moreover, DOE stated that it is
not aware of an industry test standard that evaluates cooking
performance and that would quantify the utility provided by these
products. Id. DOE also noted that all conventional ovens, regardless of
whether or not the product is marketed as commercial-style, must meet
the same safety standards for the construction of the oven. Id.
American National Standards Institute (``ANSI'') Z21.1 ``Household
Cooking Gas Appliances'' (``ANSI Z21.1''), Section 1.21.1, requires
that the oven structure, and specifically the baking racks, have
sufficient strength to sustain a load of up to 25 pounds depending on
the width of the rack. A similar standard (Underwriters Laboratories
(``UL'') 858 ``Household Electric Ranges'' (``UL 858'')) exists for
electric ovens.
DOE also observed as part of the September 2016 SNOPR that many of
the design features identified by manufacturers as unique to
commercial-style ovens and that may impact the energy consumption, such
as extension racks, convection fans, cooling fans, and hidden bake
elements, are also found in residential-style products. 81 FR 60783,
60806. DOE noted that the presence of these features, along with
thicker oven cavity walls and higher burner input rates, may help
consumers perceive a difference between commercial-style and
residential-style ovens. Id. However, DOE stated in the September 2016
SNOPR that it was not aware of a clearly defined and consistent design
difference and corresponding utility provided by commercial-style ovens
as compared to residential-style ovens. Id. For these reasons, DOE did
not propose in the September 2016 SNOPR, or in the December 2020 NOPD
to establish a separate product class for commercial-style ovens. Id.
at 85 FR 80982, 80998.
DOE did not receive any comments on the December 2020 NOPD
regarding commercial-style ovens. Based on DOE's analysis discussed
previously, DOE is not evaluating a separate product class for
commercial-style ovens in this SNOPR.
Installation Configuration
As discussed in section III.C of this document, in the October 2012
TP Final Rule, DOE amended appendix I to include methods for measuring
fan-only mode.\35\ Based on DOE's testing of freestanding, built-in,
and slide-in conventional gas and electric ovens, DOE observed that all
of the built-in and slide-in ovens tested consumed energy in fan-only
mode, whereas freestanding ovens did not. The energy consumption in
fan-only mode for built-in and slide-in ovens ranged from approximately
1.3 to 37.6 watt-hours (``Wh'') per cycle, which corresponds to 0.25 to
7.6 kWh/year. Based on DOE's reverse engineering analyses, DOE noted
that built-in and slide-in products incorporate an additional exhaust
fan and vent assembly that is not present in freestanding products. The
additional energy required to exhaust air from the oven cavity is
necessary for slide-in and built-in installation configurations to meet
safety-related temperature requirements because the oven is enclosed in
cabinetry. For these reasons, DOE proposed in the June 2015 NOPR,
September 2016 SNOPR, and December 2020 NOPD to include separate
product classes for freestanding and built-in/slide-in ovens. 80 FR
33030, 33045; 81 FR 60784, 60806; 85 FR 80982, 80998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Fan-only mode is an active mode that is not user-selectable
in which a fan circulates air internally or externally to the
cooking product for a finite period of time after the end of the
heating function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not receive comment on its proposal in the December 2020
NOPD to include separate product classes for built-in/slide-in ovens.
For the reasons discussed above, DOE analyzed separate product classes
for freestanding and built-in/slide-in ovens for this SNOPR.
c. Evaluated Product Classes
In summary, DOE analyzed the product classes listed in Table IV.1
for this SNOPR.
Table IV.1--Product Classes for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product
class Product type Sub-category Installation type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Electric cooking Open (coil)
top. elements.
2 Smooth elements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Gas cooking top.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Electric oven... Standard with or Freestanding.
without a
catalytic line.
5 Built-in/Slide-in.
6 Self-clean...... Freestanding.
7 Built-in/Slide-in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Gas oven........ Standard with or Freestanding.
without a
catalytic line.
9 Built-in/Slide-in.
[[Page 6840]]
10 Self-clean...... Freestanding.
11 Built-in/Slide-in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the product classes evaluated in this SNOPR.
2. Technology Options
In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE
identified technology options that would be expected to improve the
efficiency of conventional cooking tops and of conventional ovens.
Initially, these technologies encompass all those that DOE believes are
technologically feasible. Chapter 3 of the TSD for this SNOPR includes
the detailed list and descriptions of all technology options identified
for consumer conventional cooking products.
AHAM stated that the available technology options have not changed
since the April 2009 Final Rule. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4)
GEA stated there have been no technology improvements impacting
energy efficiency and no meaningful energy savings opportunity in
consumer conventional cooking products since the last standards rule
and therefore there is no justification for changing the current
standards. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2)
As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this SNOPR, DOE has
performed market research and evaluated available consumer conventional
cooking products to assess existing technology options. Although DOE
has found that there are no specific new technology options that impact
energy efficiency available since the April 2009 Final Rule,
manufacturers are innovating on aspects of cooking performance that do
not relate to efficiency.
a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE received comments from
AHAM opposing improved contact conductance as a technology option for
electric open (coil) element cooking tops. AHAM commented that the test
procedure specifies narrow tolerances on the flatness of the test
vessel, which AHAM felt were appropriate to reduce variability in test
results. AHAM stated that if a consumer does not use pots with
comparable flatness, any reduction in energy consumption due to greater
flatness of the heating element that would be measured using the test
procedure will not be realized in the field. Based on its test data,
AHAM asserted that consumers are using warped pans and that improving
the flatness of the heating element will not achieve improved contact
conductance. AHAM stated, therefore, that the energy savings associated
with the improved contact conductance technology option measured under
the test procedure is not representative of what consumer will
experience in the field and, as a result, this should not be considered
as a technology option. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 7-10)
DOE agreed that, based on the test data provided by AHAM, improving
the flatness of the electric coil heating element may not result in
energy savings due to the warping of pots and pans used by consumers.
As a result, DOE did not consider improved contact conductance as a
technology option for electric open (coil) element cooking tops for the
December 2020 NOPD. 85 FR 80982, 80999.
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to consider the technology
options for conventional electric cooking tops listed in Table IV.2.
Id. at 85 FR 80999-81000.
Table IV.2--December 2020 NOPD Technology Options for Conventional
Electric Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops:
1. None.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops:
1. Halogen elements.
2. Induction elements.
3. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the December 2020 NOPD, the CA IOUs requested that
DOE re-examine its reasoning for no longer considering improved
electric coils as a technology option in electric open (coil) element
cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 5) The CA IOUs acknowledged that
pan warping over time is likely to occur, however the CA IOUs do not
believe this should preclude DOE from exploring improved electric coils
as an energy saving option. (Id.) The CA IOUs also expressed doubt that
energy savings from improving contact conductance is non-existent due
to pan warping, stating that AHAM's own data confirms that pan warping
may, in some cases, actually lessen the time it takes for a pot of
water to reach 200 [deg]F on an electric open (coil) element cooking
top. (Id. citing AHAM, No. 64 at p. 9)
DOE agrees that AHAM's data show that pan warping may, in some
cases, lessen the time it takes for a pot of water to reach 200 [deg]F
on an electric open (coil) element cooking top; however, AHAM's data
also demonstrate that in other cases, pan warpage may increase such
heating time. Given the inconsistent relationship between pan warpage
and heat-up time, and the lack of information regarding how cookware
may warp during typical consumer use, manufacturers would be unable to
determine whether any modification to the flatness of their coil
heating elements would improve contact conductance. Therefore, DOE
tentatively concludes that greater flatness of the heating element
would not result in energy savings for consumers, and maintains its
decision to not consider improved contact conductance as a technology
option. DOE is also not aware of any other technology options to
improve electric open (coil) element cooking tops.
For electric open (coil) element cooking tops, in this SNOPR, DOE
did not identify any technology options for improving efficiency.
DOE seeks comment on any existing technologies that improve the
efficiency of electric open (coil) element cooking tops.
For electric smooth element cooking tops, DOE has identified an
additional technology option: reduced air gap. Typical radiant element
cooking tops have an air gap between the heating element and the
ceramic-glass cooking top surface. Energy is expended to heat the air
between the heating element and the glass, with that heated air
providing minimal heating to the cooking vessel. One approach for
increasing the efficiency of a radiant element is to reduce the air gap
to reduce the amount of wasted heat.
For electric smooth element cooking tops, in this SNOPR, DOE
considered the technologies listed in Table IV.3.
Table IV.3--Technology Options for Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Halogen elements.
2. Induction elements.
[[Page 6841]]
3. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
4. Reduced air gap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to consider the technology
options for conventional gas cooking tops listed in Table IV.4. 85 FR
80982, 80999-81000.
Table IV.4--December 2020 NOPD Technology Options for Conventional Gas
Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Radiant gas burners.
2. Catalytic burners.
3. Reduced excess air at burner.
4. Reflective surfaces.
5. Optimized burner and grate design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not receive any comments on the December 2020 NOPD
regarding additional technology options for gas cooking tops.
For gas cooking tops, in this SNOPR, DOE considered the
technologies listed in Table IV.5.
Table IV.5--Technology Options for Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Catalytic burners.
2. Optimized burner and grate design.
3. Radiant gas burners.
4. Reduced excess air at burner.
5. Reflective surfaces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Conventional Ovens
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to consider the technology
options for conventional ovens listed in Table IV.6. 85 FR 80982,
81003.
Table IV.6--December 2020 NOPD Technology Options for Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bi-radiant oven (electric only).
2. Forced convection.
3. Halogen lamp oven (electric only).
4. Improved and added insulation (standard ovens only).
5. Improved door seals.
6. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
7. No oven-door window.
8. Oven separator (electric only).
9. Optimized burner and cavity design (gas only).
10. Reduced vent rate (electric standard ovens only).
11. Reflective surfaces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on review of the additional test data provided by AHAM and
GEA in response to the September 2016 SNOPR, in the December 2020 NOPD,
DOE agreed that replacing the intermittent glo-bar ignition system with
an intermittent/interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot ignition may
not achieve energy savings due to the elimination of heat input that
the glo-bar contributes to the cavity and food load, which must be
offset by additional gas consumption. Id. at 85 FR 81001. As a result,
DOE did not consider intermittent/interrupted or intermittent pilot
ignition systems as a technology option in the December 2020 NOPD. Id.
NEEA recommended that DOE conduct its own testing to verify whether
or not there is an energy savings opportunity from intermittent pilot
ignition systems compared to glo-bar ignition systems. (NEEA, No. 88 at
p. 4)
NEEA has not provided any data or information to suggest that
intermittent pilot ignition systems provide any energy savings compared
to glo-bar ignition systems. DOE continues to agree with AHAM's
theoretical assertion that replacing the intermittent glo-bar ignition
system with an intermittent pilot ignition would eliminate the heat
input that the glo-bar contributes to the cavity and food load, which
must be offset by additional gas consumption. Because this theory is
supported by AHAM's test data, DOE continues to consider that
intermittent pilot ignition systems would not provide energy savings,
and is not considering them as a technology option in this SNOPR.
DOE requests information on the potential energy savings associated
with intermittent pilot ignition systems.
For gas and electric ovens, in this SNOPR, DOE considered the
technologies listed in Table IV.7.
Table IV.7--Technology Options for Conventional Electric and Gas Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bi-radiant oven (electric only).
2. Forced convection.
3. Halogen lamp oven (electric only).
4. Improved and added insulation (standard ovens only).
5. Improved door seals.
6. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
7. No oven-door window.
8. Optimized burner and cavity design (gas only).
9. Oven separator (electric only).
10. Reduced vent rate (electric standard ovens only).
11. Reflective surfaces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing
prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to
subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered
product type with performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as products generally available in the United States at the time,
it will not be considered further.
(4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
The following sections also include comments from interested
parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops
Based on DOE's review of products available on the market and its
product teardowns, DOE stated in the December 2020 NOPD that it is not
aware of any cooking tops that incorporate halogen heating elements.
Id. at 85 FR 81004. Because this technology is currently not being used
commercially or in working prototypes, DOE stated that it does not
believe that it would be practicable to
[[Page 6842]]
produce this technology in commercial products on the scale necessary
to serve the market by the potential compliance date of the proposed
standards. Id. As a result, DOE screened out halogen elements from
further analysis in the December 2020 NOPD. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments on the December 2020 NOPD
regarding the screening analysis for conventional electric cooking
tops.
In this SNOPR, DOE maintains its tentative determination from the
December 2020 NOPD that it would not be practicable to manufacture,
install and service halogen heating elements for electric smooth
element cooking tops on the scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the effective date of an amended standard, and
screened out this technology from further consideration.
In this SNOPR, DOE is additionally screening out a subset of low-
standby-loss electronic controls, namely those that use ``automatic
power-down'' because this type of low-standby-loss electronic controls
may negatively impact product utility. In particular, it may result in
a loss in the utility of the continuous clock display for combined
cooking products, such as ranges. However, it should be noted that the
other low-standby-loss electronic controls such as switch-mode power
supplies (``SMPSs'') were still analyzed in this SNOPR.
In this SNOPR, DOE is additionally screening out reduced air gap as
a technology option because DOE is aware that the air gaps in
commercialized radiant heating elements are currently as small as is
practicable to manufacture on the scale necessary to serve the cooking
products market. Furthermore, DOE is not aware of the magnitude of
potential energy savings from this technology.
DOE requests comment on the magnitude of potential energy savings
that could result from the use of a reduced air gap as a technology
option.
DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional
electric cooking tops and whether any additional technology options
should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in
this SNOPR.
b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
For conventional gas cooking tops, in the September 2016 SNOPR and
the December 2020 NOPD, DOE screened out radiant gas burners, catalytic
burners, reduced excess air at burner, and reflective surfaces. 81 FR
60784, 60810-60811; 85 FR 80982, 81003.
In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE considered different efficiency
levels associated with the optimized burner and grate design technology
option that it observed in products available on the market, including
a range of commercial-style gas cooking tops that maintain the
utilities discussed previously in section IV.A.1.a of this document. 81
FR 60784, 60817. DOE characterized the optimized burner and grate
design incremental efficiency levels based on different observed
features (e.g., HIR burners, grate types and material). Id.
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE further noted that all gas cooking
tops on the market, including those with an optimized burner and grate
design, have been certified to applicable safety standards. 85 FR
80982, 81004. However, DOE recognized that the estimates for the energy
savings associated with optimized burner and grate design may vary
depending on the test procedure, and thus screened out this technology
option from further analysis of gas cooking tops in the December 2020
NOPD. Id. DOE stated that it would reevaluate the energy savings
associated with this technology option if it considered performance
standards in a future rulemaking. Id.
NEEA recommended that, under an updated test procedure, DOE
continue to evaluate screened out technologies such as optimized burner
and grate design, because NEEA believes this technology option has the
potential to impact efficiency significantly as it affects heat
transfer from the burner to the pot or pan. (NEEA, No. 88 at pp. 3-4)
NEEA recommended that, under an updated test procedure, DOE continue to
evaluate screened out technology options that may improve heat transfer
between the burner and the cooking vessel like the Turbo Pot product
which according to NEEA can improve efficiency by 50 to 60 percent
through a fin design on the pot. (NEEA, No. 88 at p. 4) NEEA recommends
that, under an updated test procedure, DOE continue to evaluate
screened out technology options that improve transfer efficiency
between the burner and the cooking vessel including new burner face
materials (such as metal mesh, ceramics, and metal foam) and power
burners instead of atmospheric burners. (NEEA, No. 88 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs requested that DOE re-examine its reasoning for
screening out optimized grates and burners, because the CA IOUs believe
improvements to this technology could ultimately lead to a non-zero
savings value for gas cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 4) The CA
IOUs added that if the withdrawn test procedure is adequate to analyze
the efficiency improvements of grate design, and overall performance
improvement of other product classes' design features, it should not
preclude DOE from considering technologically feasible design
improvements that would improve energy efficiency in gas cooking tops.
(Id.)
As discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE is considering
performance standards for cooking tops, based on new appendix I1.
Therefore, as discussed in the December 2020 NOPD, DOE is reevaluating
the energy savings associated with optimized burner and grate design.
As discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR, DOE testing has
confirmed that optimizing the burner and grate system can lead to
reduced energy consumption, as measured under appendix I1. Therefore,
DOE is no longer screening out optimized burner and grate design from
its analysis.
However, DOE is aware of a wide range of optimized burner and grate
designs on the market, some of which may reduce the consumer utility
associated with HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates. In this
SNOPR, DOE is screening out any optimized burner and grate designs that
would reduce consumer utility by only including in its analysis gas
cooking tops that include at least one HIR burner and continuous cast-
iron grates.
In this SNOPR, DOE is continuing to screen out catalytic burners,
radiant gas burners, reduced excess air at burner, and reflective
surfaces, for the same reasons as in the December 2020 NOPD.
DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional gas
cooking tops and whether any additional technology options should be
screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in this
SNOPR.
c. Conventional Ovens
For the same reasons discussed in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
screened out added insulation, bi-radiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no
oven door window, reflective surfaces, and optimized burner and cavity
design from further analysis for conventional ovens in the December
2020 NOPD. 81 FR 60784, 60811; 85 FR 80982, 81004.
The Joint Commenters stated that DOE's screening analysis was
inconsistent. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 2) In particular, the
Joint Commenters noted that technology options like optimized burner
and grate design for gas cooking tops were screened out due to the lack
of a test procedure whereas other technology options that rely on a
test procedure like improved insulation and improved door seals for
conventional ovens were kept
[[Page 6843]]
in the analysis. (Id.) The Joint Commenters added that new test
procedures should be established prior to conducting analysis of
potential standards. (Id.)
As discussed above, DOE is no longer screening out optimized burner
and grate design for gas cooking tops, due to the existence of the new
appendix I1 test procedure.
DOE agrees with the Joint Commenters and recognizes that the
estimates for the energy savings associated with improved insulation,
improved door seals and reduced vent rate may vary depending on the
test procedure, and thus is screening out these technology options from
further analysis of gas cooking tops in this SNOPR. DOE will reevaluate
the energy savings associated with this technology option if it
considers performance standards in a future rulemaking.
For the same reasons as discussed above for conventional electric
cooking tops, DOE is continuing to screen out the use of automatic
power-down low-standby-loss electronic controls. DOE is aware that the
use of automatic power-down low-standby-loss electronic controls may
negatively impact product utility. In particular, the use of automatic
power-down low-standby-loss electronic controls may result in a loss in
the utility of the continuous clock display for ovens. However, it
should be noted that the other low-standby-loss electronic controls
such as SMPSs were still analyzed.
Because DOE did not receive any comments opposing the conventional
oven technology options screened out in the December 2020 NOPD, for the
same reasons discussed in the December 2020 NOPD, DOE is continuing to
screen out added insulation, bi-radiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no
oven door window, reflective surfaces, and optimized burner and cavity
design from further analysis in this SNOPR. DOE continues to seek
comment on the technology options screened out in this SNOPR.
DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional ovens
and whether any additional technology options should be screened out on
the basis of any of the screening criteria in this SNOPR.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that
all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 of
this document met all five screening criteria to be examined further as
design options in DOE's SNOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen
out the technology options listed in Table IV.8.
Table IV.8--Retained Design Options for Consumer Conventional Cooking
Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops:
None.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops:
1. Induction elements.
2. Switch-mode power supply.
Gas Cooking Tops:
1. Optimized burner and grate design.
Conventional Ovens:
1. Forced convection.
2. Switch-mode power supply.
3. Oven separator (electric only).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the retained design options for consumer
conventional cooking products.
DOE has initially determined that these technology options are
technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously
been used in commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE
also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other
screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and
service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility,
product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary
technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the TSD for
this SNOPR.
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of consumer conventional
cooking products. There are two elements to consider in the engineering
analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the
``efficiency analysis'') and the determination of product cost at each
efficiency level (i.e., the ``cost analysis''). In determining the
performance of higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies
and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening
analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as
well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above
the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge
large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to
extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-
tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on
the market).
In this SNOPR, DOE is adopting a design-option approach supported
by testing, supplemented by reverse engineering (physical teardowns and
testing of existing products in the market) to identify the incremental
cost and efficiency improvement associated with each design option or
design option combination. The design-option approach is appropriate
for consumer conventional cooking products, given the lack of
certification data to determine the market distribution of existing
products and to identify efficiency level ``clusters'' that already
exist on the market. DOE also conducted interviews with manufacturers
of consumer conventional cooking products following the February 2014
RFI to develop a deeper understanding of the various combinations of
design options used to increase product efficiency, and their
associated manufacturing costs.
DOE conducted testing and reverse engineering teardowns on products
available on the market. Because there are no performance-based energy
conservation standards or energy reporting requirements for consumer
conventional cooking products, DOE selected test units based on
performance-related features and technologies advertised in product
literature.
For each product/equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline
model
[[Page 6844]]
as a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting
from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The
baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of
a product typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size).
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
For each product class for both conventional cooking tops and
conventional ovens, DOE analyzed several efficiency levels (``ELs'').
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is
the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE also
defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum
possible efficiency for a given product.
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, AHAM commented that the
manufacturer interviews in the earlier stages of the rulemaking have
little or no meaning under the current proposed test procedure. (AHAM,
No. 64 at p. 34-35) AHAM commented that significant changes to DOE's
analysis have occurred since the manufacturer interviews, including (a)
the proposed repeal of the oven test procedure;(b) the proposal of an
entirely different cooking top test procedure; and (c) the entirely
different approach taken to both cooking top and oven standards. (Id.)
AHAM commented that the September 2016 SNOPR was an entirely new
proposal, compared to previous proposals, that was based on a totally
new test procedure with which manufacturers had very little experience.
(Id.)
In the December 2020 NOPD, before the publication of the August
2022 TP Final Rule, DOE was following the then-current version of the
Process Rule which indicated that a NOPD would be warranted due to the
potential energy savings of the economically justified efficiency
levels being below the mandatory threshold level. Therefore, at the
time of the December 2020 NOPD, DOE did not conduct supplemental
manufacturer interviews. Since then, two factors have changed to
justify DOE's current SNOPR: first the Process Rule has been amended
and no longer includes a mandatory threshold, and second, the
publication of the August 2022 TP Final Rule enabled DOE to propose
performance standards for conventional cooking tops which have higher
energy saving potentials than the design requirement standards
considered in the December 2020 NOPD. Accordingly, for this SNOPR, DOE
sought updated manufacturer feedback through confidential interviews on
issues relating to potential energy conservation standards for both
conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens.
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
The December 2020 NOPD was published prior to the August 2022 TP
Final Rule establishing appendix I1, which measures the energy
consumption of conventional cooking tops. In the absence of a test
procedure, the efficiency levels defined in the December 2020 NOPD were
based on prescriptive standards. Therefore, the efficiency levels
defined in the December 2020 NOPD are no longer relevant.
DOE's test sample for this SNOPR included 14 electric cooking tops,
the cooking top portion of 8 electric ranges, 13 gas cooking tops, and
the cooking top portion of 8 gas ranges for a total of 43 consumer
conventional cooking tops covering all of the product classes
considered in this analysis. The test unit characteristics and appendix
I1 test results are available in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
Baseline Efficiency Levels
For this SNOPR, DOE developed performance-based baseline efficiency
levels for consumer conventional cooking tops using the measured energy
consumption of units in the DOE test sample. DOE determined the cooking
top IAEC for each cooking top in the test sample based on the water
heating test procedure adopted in the August 2022 TP Final Rule.
The baseline cooking top efficiency levels for this SNOPR differ
from those presented in the December 2020 NOPD. As discussed, the
cooking top efficiency levels for this SNOPR were determined using the
test procedure finalized in the August 2022 TP Final Rule, whereas the
analysis published in the December 2020 NOPD was based on the test
method adopted in the December 2016 TP Final Rule. As part of the
August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE defined IAEC using an average of 418
cooking top cycles per year to represent consumer cooking frequency, as
determined using data from the 2015 RECS. By comparison, the December
2016 TP Final Rule used values of 207.5 and 214.5 cooking top cycles
per year for electric and gas cooking tops, respectively, based on the
2009 RECS. Primarily due to the updated number of cooking top cycles
per year (along with some other minor changes to the test procedure),
the baseline IAEC values calculated using the test method finalized in
the August 2022 TP Final Rule are higher than the baseline IAEC values
presented in the December 2020 NOPD.
To establish the new baseline IAEC values for cooking tops, DOE set
the baseline cooking top integrated annual energy consumption (i.e.,
IAEC) equal to the sum of the maximum cooking top active annual energy
consumption (i.e., AEC) observed in the dataset for the analyzed
product class and the maximum combined low-power mode annual energy
consumption (``ETLP'') observed in the dataset for the
analyzed product class. This approach is consistent with the design-
option approach used to determine the incremental efficiency levels, as
discussed further in chapter 5 of TSD for this SNOPR. The consumer
conventional cooking top baseline efficiency levels for this SNOPR,
expressed in kWh/year for electric cooking tops and kBtu/year, are
presented in Table IV.9.
Table IV.9--Consumer Conventional Cooking Top Baseline Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class IAEC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Cooking Tops--Open (Coil) 199 kWh/year.
Elements.
Electric Cooking Tops--Smooth Elements. 250 kWh/year.
Gas Cooking Tops....................... 1,775 kBtu/year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops evaluated
in this SNOPR would replace the current prescriptive standards for gas
cooking tops which prohibits the use of a constant burning pilot light.
As such, DOE's proposed standards for gas cooking tops would be only
performance standards. DOE notes that constant burning pilot lights
consume approximately 2,000 kBtu/year and even the baseline considered
efficiency level of 1,775 kBtu per year for gas cooking tops would not
be achievable by products if they were to incorporate a constant
burning pilot.
DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the proposed
baseline efficiency levels for conventional cooking tops.
Incremental Efficiency Levels
i. Electric Cooking Tops
For the electric open (coil) element cooking top product class, DOE
did not identify any design options for reducing IAEC in this SNOPR and
as a result, DOE did not consider any higher efficiency levels above
the baseline.
For electric smooth element cooking tops, as discussed, DOE
measured the
[[Page 6845]]
AEC and ETLP of each cooking top in its test sample for this
SNOPR. DOE then reviewed the AEC and ETLP values for the
electric smooth element cooking tops in its test sample and identified
three higher efficiency levels that can be achieved without sacrificing
clock functionality.
DOE defined EL 1 for electric smooth element cooking tops based on
the low-standby-loss electronic controls design option. As discussed
above, DOE defined the baseline efficiency assuming the highest AEC
would be paired with the highest ETLP observed in its test
sample. DOE is aware of many methods employed by manufacturers to
achieve lower ETLP, including by changing from a linear
power supply to an SMPS, by dimming the control screen's default
brightness, by allowing the clock functionality to turn off after a
period of inactivity, and by removing the clock from the cooking top
altogether. DOE defined EL 1 using the lowest measured ETLP
among the units in its test sample with clock functionality, paired
with the baseline AEC, to avoid any potential loss of utility from
setting a standard based on a unit without clock functionality.
DOE defined EL 2 for electric smooth element cooking tops using the
lowest measured AEC (highest efficiency) among radiant cooking tops in
its sample and the same ETLP as EL 1. DOE notes that, this
AEC value can also be reached by units using induction technology.
To determine the highest measured efficiency for electric smooth
element cooking tops, ``max tech'' or EL 3, DOE calculated the sum of
the lowest measured AEC in its test sample of electric smooth element
cooking tops, which represented induction technology, and the same
ETLP as EL 1.
DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the proposed
incremental efficiency levels for electric cooking tops.
ii. Gas Cooking Tops
In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE considered efficiency levels
associated with optimized burner and grate design for conventional gas
cooking tops. 81 FR 60783, 60817. DOE's testing at the time showed that
energy use was correlated to burner design (e.g., grate weight, flame
angle, distance from burner ports to the cooking surface) and could be
reduced by optimizing the design of the burner and grate system. DOE
reviewed the test data for the conventional gas cooking tops in its
test sample and identified three efficiency levels associated with
improving the burner and grate design. Id.
Although DOE's testing showed that there was no statistically
significant correlation between burner input rate and cooking energy
consumption of the cooking top, DOE noted that cooking tops that
incorporate different combinations of burners, including HIR burners
for larger food loads, have differing capabilities to cook or heat
different sized food loads. As a result, DOE proposed multiple
efficiency levels that took into account key burner configurations. Id.
DOE defined EL 1 in the September 2016 SNOPR based on an optimized
burner and improved grate design of the unit in the test sample with
the lowest measured IAEC among those with cast-iron grates and a six-
surface unit configuration with at least four out of the six surface
units having burner input rates exceeding 14,000 Btu/h. Id. DOE
selected these criteria to maintain the full functionality of cooking
tops marketed as commercial-style. Id. DOE noted that while there are
some such products with fewer than six surface units and fewer than
four HIR burners, DOE did not observe any products marketed as
residential-style with the burner configuration DOE associated with
Efficiency Level 1 of the September 2016 SNOPR. Id.
DOE defined EL 2 in the September 2016 SNOPR based on an optimized
burner and further improved grate design of the unit in the DOE test
sample with the lowest measured IAEC among those units with cast-iron
grates and at least one surface unit having a burner input rate
exceeding 14,000 Btu/h. Id. None of the gas units in the DOE test
sample marketed as commercial-style were capable of achieving this
efficiency level. The cooking tops in the DOE test sample capable of
meeting this efficiency level were marketed as residential-style and
had significantly lighter cast-iron grates than the commercial-style
units. Id.
DOE defined EL 3 (max-tech) in the September 2016 SNOPR based on
the unit in the DOE test sample with the lowest measured IAEC among
those with cast-iron grates, regardless of the number of burners or
burner input rate. Id. DOE noted that the grate weight for this unit
was not lowest in the DOE test sample, confirming that a fully
optimized burner and grate design, and not a reduction in grate weight
alone, is required to improve cooking top efficiency.
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, AHAM commented that there
were commercial-style products on the market at that time with up to
six HIR burners. AHAM's test data indicated that cooking products
meeting this description were not able to meet DOE's Efficiency Level 1
as proposed in the September 2016 SNOPR. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 25)
Because DOE's proposed standard level was designed to maintain the full
functionality of commercial-style gas cooking tops, AHAM urged DOE to
propose a less stringent level for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 64 at
p. 28)
DOE has preliminarily determined, as discussed in section IV.B.1.b
of this document, that the utility of commercial-style cooking products
can be met with a single HIR burner. For this SNOPR, DOE considered
efficiency levels associated with optimized burner and grate design,
but only insofar as was not screened out. DOE is aware that some
methods used by gas cooking top manufacturers to achieve lower AEC can
result in a smaller number of HIR burners.\36\ HIR burners provide
unique consumer utility and allow consumers to perform high heat
cooking activities such as searing and stir-frying. DOE is also aware
that some consumers derive utility from continuous cast-iron grates,
such as the ability to use heavy pans, or to shift cookware between
burners without needing to lift them. Because of this, as discussed in
IV.B.1.b of this document, DOE has defined the ELs for gas cooking tops
such that all ELs are achievable with continuous cast-iron grates and
at least one HIR burner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ DOE defines a high-input rate burner as a burner with an
input rate greater than or equal to 14,000 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's testing showed that energy use was correlated to burner
design and cooking top configuration (e.g., grate weight, flame angle,
distance from burner ports to the cooking surface) and could be reduced
by optimizing the design of the burner and grate system. DOE reviewed
the test data for the gas cooking tops in its test sample and
identified two efficiency levels associated with improving the burner
and grate design that corresponded to different design criteria. DOE
defined EL 1 and EL 2 for gas cooking tops using the same
ETLP as used for the baseline efficiency level.
DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the proposed
incremental efficiency levels for gas cooking tops.
iii. Analyzed Efficiency Levels
As discussed, DOE established efficiency levels for electric smooth
element cooking tops and for gas cooking tops based on combining an AEC
value and an ETLP value associated with specific design
options, noting that different combinations of AEC and ETLP
could be used to meet the IAEC of a
[[Page 6846]]
given efficiency level. Table IV.10 through Table IV.12 show the
efficiency levels for each cooking top product class that are evaluated
in this SNOPR.
Table IV.10--Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Top Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAEC (kWh/
Level year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................................ 199
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.11--Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAEC (kWh/
Level Design options year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................... Baseline............... 250
1.............................. Baseline + Low-Standby- 207
Loss Electronic
Controls.
2.............................. 1 + Improved Resistance 189
Heating Elements.
3.............................. 1 + Highest Active Mode 179
Efficiency (Induction).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.12--Gas Cooking Top Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAEC (kBtu/
Level Design options year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................... Baseline............... 1,775
1.............................. Baseline + Optimized 1,440
Burner/Improved Grates
(Achievable with 4 or
more HIR burners and
continuous cast-iron
grates).
2.............................. Highest Measured 1,204
Efficiency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Conventional Ovens
Potential Prescriptive Standards
As discussed in section III.C of this document, there are no
current test procedures for conventional ovens. Therefore, in this
SNOPR, DOE is considering only efficiency levels corresponding to
prescriptive design requirements as defined by the design options
developed as part of the screening analysis (see section IV.B of this
document): forced convection, the use of a switch-mode power supply,
and an oven separator.
DOE ordered the design options by ease of implementation. Table
IV.13 and Table IV.14 define the efficiency levels analyzed in this
SNOPR for conventional electric and gas ovens, respectively.
Table IV.13--Conventional Electric Oven Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Design option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................................... Baseline.
1................................................. Baseline + SMPS.
2................................................. 1 + Forced
Convection.
3................................................. 2 + Oven Separator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.14--Conventional Gas Oven Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Design option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................................... Baseline.
1................................................. Baseline + SMPS.
2................................................. 1 + Forced
Convection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All efficiency levels for conventional gas ovens include the
current prescriptive requirement prohibiting the use of a constant
burning pilot light.
In this SNOPR, DOE is assuming that a baseline conventional oven
uses a linear power supply, based on DOE's analysis of these products.
A linear power supply typically produces unregulated as well as
regulated power. The main characteristic of an unregulated power supply
is that its output may contain significant voltage ripple and that the
output voltage will usually vary with the current drawn. The voltages
produced by regulated power supplies are typically more stable,
exhibiting less ripple than the output from an unregulated power supply
and maintaining a relatively constant voltage within the specified
current limits of the device(s) regulating the power. The unregulated
portion of a linear power supply typically consists of a transformer
that steps AC line voltage down, a voltage rectifier circuit for AC to
DC conversion, and a capacitor to produce unregulated, DC output.
However, there are other means of producing and implementing an
unregulated power supply such as transformerless capacitive and/or
resistive rectification circuits. Within a linear power supply, the
unregulated
[[Page 6847]]
output serves as an input into a single or multiple voltage-regulating
devices. Such regulating devices include Zener diodes, linear voltage
regulators, or similar components which produce a lower-potential,
regulated power output from a higher-potential DC input. This approach
results in a rugged power supply which is reliable, but typically has
an efficiency of about 40 percent.
For EL 1, DOE is analyzing the use of an SMPS rather than a linear
power supply. An SMPS can reduce the standby mode energy consumption
for conventional ovens due to their higher conversion efficiencies of
up to 75 percent in appliance applications for power supply sizes
similar to those of conventional ovens. An SMPS also reduces the no-
load standby losses. In this SNOPR, DOE is considering EL 1 to
correspond to the prescriptive requirement that the conventional oven
not be equipped with a linear power supply.
For EL 2, DOE is analyzing the use of forced convection. A forced
convection oven uses a fan to distribute warm air evenly throughout the
oven cavity. The use of forced circulation can reduce fuel consumption
by cooking food more quickly, at lower temperatures, and in larger
quantities than a natural convection oven of the same size and rating.
Ovens can use convection heating elements in addition to resistance and
other types of elements to speed up the cooking process. By using
different cooking elements where they are most effective, such
combination ovens can reduce the time and energy consumption required
to cook food. As described further in chapter 5 of the TSD for this
SNOPR, DOE performed testing on consumer conventional ovens in support
of this rulemaking to determine the improvement in cooking efficiency
associated with forced convection. Included in the DOE test sample were
four gas ovens and two electric ovens equipped with forced convection.
DOE compared the measured energy consumption of each oven in bake mode
to the average energy consumption of bake mode and convection mode
(including energy consumption due to the fan motor) as specified in the
test procedure. The relative decrease in active mode energy consumption
resulting from the use of forced convection in consumer conventional
ovens ranged from 3.5 to 7.5 percent depending on the product class. In
this SNOPR, DOE is considering EL 2 to correspond to the prescriptive
requirement that the conventional oven be equipped with a convection
fan. This prescriptive requirement would not preclude a non-convection
mode being offered selectable by the consumer.
For EL 3, DOE is analyzing the use of an oven separator, for
electric ovens only.\37\ For loads that do not require the entire oven
volume, an oven separator can be used to reduce the cavity volume that
is used for cooking. With less oven volume to heat, the energy used to
cook an item would be reduced. The oven separator considered here is
the type that can be easily and quickly installed by the user. The side
walls of the oven cavity would be fitted with ``slots'' that guide and
hold the separator into position, and a switch to indicate when the
separator has been installed. The oven would also require at least two
separate heating elements to heat the two cavities. Different pairs of
``slots'' would be spaced throughout the oven cavity so that the user
could select different positions to place the separator. In this SNOPR,
DOE is considering EL 3 to correspond to the prescriptive requirement
that the conventional electric oven be equipped with an oven separator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Oven separators are not used in conventional gas ovens
because they would interfere with the combustion air flow and
venting requirements for the separate gas burners on the top and
bottom of the oven cavity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the definitions of the proposed efficiency
level for conventional ovens.
Energy Consumption of Baseline Efficiency Level
As noted in the December 2020 NOPD, DOE's test sample for
conventional ovens included one gas wall oven, seven gas ranges, five
electric wall ovens, and two electric ranges for a total of 15
conventional ovens covering all of the considered product classes. DOE
conducted testing according to the test procedure adopted in the July
2015 TP Final Rule. 81 FR 60784, 60812. However, as discussed
previously, in this SNOPR, DOE is considering only efficiency levels
corresponding to prescriptive design requirements. In order to develop
estimated energy consumption rates for each efficiency level, in
support of the Energy Use analysis (see section IV.E of this document),
DOE based its analyses on the data measured using the now-repealed test
procedure.
The integrated annual oven energy consumption (``IEAO''
\38\) for each consumer conventional oven in DOE's test sample was
broken down into its component parts: the energy of active cooking
mode, EAO (including any self-cleaning operation); fan-only
mode, for built-in/slide-in ovens as applicable; and combined low-power
mode, ETLP (including standby mode and off mode).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ In this SNOPR, DOE refers to the integrated annual oven
energy consumption using the abbreviation IEAO, rather
than IAEC, as was used in previous documents in this rulemaking.
This change is being made to emphasize the difference between the
IAEC values used for conventional cooking tops which were measured
according to the new appendix I1 and the energy use values used for
conventional ovens which were measured according to the test
procedure as finalized in the July 2015 TP Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because oven cooking efficiency and energy consumption depend on
cavity volume, DOE normalized IEAO to a representative
cavity volume of 4.3 ft\3\ using the relationship between energy
consumption and cavity volume discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD for
this SNOPR to allow for more direct comparison between units in the
test sample.
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE developed energy
consumption values for the baseline efficiency levels for conventional
ovens considering both data from the previous standards rulemaking and
the measured energy use for the test units. DOE conducted testing for
all units in its test sample to measure integrated annual energy
consumption, which included energy use in active mode (including fan-
only mode) and standby mode. 81 FR 60784, 60814. As discussed in the
September 2016 SNOPR, DOE augmented its analysis of electric standard
ovens by considering the energy use of the electric self-clean units in
its test sample, adjusted to account for the differences between
standard-clean and self-clean ovens. Augmenting the electric standard
oven dataset with self-clean models from the DOE test sample allowed
DOE to consider a wider range of cavity volumes in its analysis. 81 FR
60784, 60815. To establish the estimated energy consumption values for
the baseline efficiency levels for conventional ovens, DOE first
derived a relationship between energy consumption and cavity volume.
Using the slope from the previous rulemaking, DOE selected new
intercepts corresponding to the ovens in its test sample with the
lowest efficiency, so that no ovens in the test sample were cut off by
the baseline curve. DOE then set baseline standby energy consumption
for conventional ovens equal to that of the oven (including the oven
component of a range) with the highest standby energy consumption in
DOE's test sample to maintain the full functionality of controls for
consumer utility. In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE did not
receive comment on the baseline efficiency levels considered for
[[Page 6848]]
conventional ovens. 85 FR 80982, 81011. Thus, DOE did not modify the
baseline levels for conventional ovens in the December 2020 NOPD.
As part of the December 2020 NOPD, DOE evaluated the baseline
efficiency levels presented in Table IV.15, which also presents the
energy consumption values for each product class which are based on an
oven with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft\3\. Id.
Table IV.15--December 2020 NOPD Proposed Conventional Oven Baseline
Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class Sub type IEAO*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Oven--Standard Oven Freestanding... 315.2 kWh/year.
with or without a Catalytic
Line.
Built-in/Slide- 322.3 kWh/year.
in.
Electric Oven--Self-Clean Freestanding... 354.9 kWh/year.
Oven.
Built-in/Slide- 362.0 kWh/year.
in.
Gas Oven--Standard Oven with Freestanding... 2083.1 kBtu/year.
or without a Catalytic Line.
Built-in/Slide- 2093.0 kBtu/year.
in.
Gas Oven--Self-Clean Oven.... Freestanding... 1959.6 kBtu/year.
Built-in/Slide- 1969.6 kBtu/year.
in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* IEAO values are normalized based on a 4.3 ft\3\ volume oven.
For this SNOPR, DOE expanded its sample size of conventional ovens
and ranges which were used to determine the baseline ETLP
value. DOE calculated the baseline ETLP using the highest
combined low-power mode measured power on a conventional range with a
linear power supply. DOE also rectified a formula error which was
incorrectly allocating the number of hours in fan-only mode. These
small changes resulted in slightly updated estimated energy consumption
representing the baseline efficiency levels.
The evaluated baseline efficiency levels for consumer conventional
ovens are presented in Table IV.16. After receiving manufacturer
feedback and reviewing products currently on the market, DOE determined
the energy consumption of the baseline efficiency levels based on an
oven with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft\3\ to represent the market-average
cavity volume.
Table IV.16--Estimated Energy Consumption of Baseline Consumer
Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class Sub type IEAO*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Oven--Standard Oven Freestanding...... 314.7 kWh/year.
with or without a Catalytic
Line.
Built-in/Slide-in. 321.2 kWh/year.
Electric Oven--Self-Clean Oven.. Freestanding...... 354.4 kWh/year.
Built-in/Slide-in. 360.5 kWh/year.
Gas Oven--Standard Oven with or Freestanding...... 2085 kBtu/year.
without a Catalytic Line.
Built-in/Slide-in. 2104 kBtu/year.
Gas Oven--Self-Clean Oven....... Freestanding...... 1958 kBtu/year.
Built-in/Slide-in. 1979 kBtu/year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* IEAO values are normalized based on a 4.3 ft\3\ volume oven.
Energy Consumption of Incremental Efficiency Levels
For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE developed incremental efficiency
levels for each conventional oven product class by first considering
information from the previous rulemaking analysis described in the 2009
TSD. In cases where DOE identified design options during testing and
reverse engineering teardowns, DOE updated the efficiency levels based
on the tested data. 81 FR 60784, 60818. Table IV.17 through Table IV.20
present the efficiency levels for each product class proposed in the
September 2016 SNOPR, along with the associated estimated energy
consumption normalized based on an oven with a cavity volume of 4.3
ft\3\. In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE did not receive
comment on the incremental efficiency levels considered for
conventional ovens. Id. Thus, DOE did not modify the incremental levels
for conventional ovens in the December 2020 NOPD. 85 FR 80982, 81015.
Table IV.17--December 2020 NOPD Evaluated Electric Standard Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEAO (kWh/year)
-------------------------------
Level Design option Built-in/
Freestanding slide-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................................... Baseline........................ 315.2 322.3
1............................................. Baseline + SMPS................. 306.3 313.3
2............................................. 1 + Reduced Vent Rate........... 291.9 299.0
3............................................. 2 + Improved Insulation......... 278.0 285.0
4............................................. 3 + Improved Door Seals......... 273.2 280.3
5............................................. 4 + Forced Convection........... 261.7 268.7
6............................................. 5 + Oven Separator.............. 220.6 227.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6849]]
Table IV.18--December 2020 NOPD Evaluated Electric Self-Clean Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEAO (kWh/year)
-------------------------------
Level Design option Built-in/
Freestanding slide-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................................... Baseline........................ 354.9 362.0
1............................................. Baseline + SMPS................. 346.0 353.0
2............................................. 1 + Forced Convection........... 327.3 334.3
3............................................. 2 + Oven Separator.............. 277.8 284.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.19--December 2020 NOPD Evaluated Gas Standard Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEAO (kBtu/year)
-------------------------------
Level Design option Built-in/
Freestanding slide-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................................... Baseline........................ 2083.1 2093.0
1............................................. Baseline + SMPS................. 2052.5 2062.4
2............................................. 1 + Improved Insulation......... 1946.4 1955.8
3............................................. 2 + Improved Door Seals......... 1926.6 1935.9
4............................................. 3 + Forced Convection........... 1832.9 1841.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.20--December 2020 NOPD Evaluated Gas Self-Clean Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEAO (kBtu/year)
-------------------------------
Level Design option Built-in/
Freestanding slide-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................................... Baseline........................ 1959.6 1969.6
1............................................. Baseline + SMPS................. 1929.0 1939.0
2............................................. 1 + Forced Convection........... 1830.5 1839.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE developed the incremental efficiency levels for each design
option identified as a result of the screening analysis. DOE then
developed estimated energy consumption values for each efficiency level
based on test data collected according to the earlier version of the
oven test procedure established in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. The
details of the methodology used to estimate the energy consumption of
each efficiency level for each product class are available in chapter 5
of the TSD for this SNOPR.
DOE's testing of freestanding, built-in, and slide-in installation
configurations for consumer conventional gas and electric ovens
revealed that built-in and slide-in ovens have a fan that consumes
energy in fan-only mode, whereas freestanding ovens do not have such a
fan. For this SNOPR, DOE developed separate energy consumption values
for each installation configuration.
Table IV.21 and Table IV.22 show the efficiency levels for each
consumer conventional oven product class analyzed in this SNOPR. The
IEAO values for each efficiency level are normalized based
on an oven cavity volume of 4.3 ft\3\.
Table IV.21--Estimated Energy Consumption of Electric Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEAO (kBtu/year)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Level Design option Self-clean
Standard Standard built- Self-clean built-in/
freestanding in/ slide-in freestanding slide-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... Baseline........ 314.7 321.2 354.4 360.5
1............................. Baseline + SMPS. 302.0 308.9 341.7 348.1
2............................. 1 + Forced 289.0 295.9 328.7 335.1
Convection.
3............................. 2 + Oven 235.3 242.1 275.0 281.4
Separator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6850]]
Table IV.22--Estimated Energy Consumption of Gas Oven Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEAO (kBtu/year)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Level Design option Self-clean
Standard Standard built- Self-clean built-in/
freestanding in/ slide-in freestanding slide-in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... Baseline........ 2085 2104 1958 1979
1............................. Baseline + SMPS. 2041 2062 1915 1937
2............................. 1 + Forced 1908 1929 1781 1804
Convection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the estimated
energy use of each proposed efficiency level for conventional ovens.
Energy Use Versus Cavity Volume
The energy consumption of the conventional oven efficiency levels
detailed above are predicated upon ovens with a cavity volume of 4.3
ft\3\. Based on DOE's testing of conventional gas and electric ovens
and discussions with manufacturers, energy use scales with oven cavity
volume due to larger ovens having higher thermal masses and larger
volumes of air (including larger vent rates) than smaller ovens.
Because the DOE test procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule
for measuring IEAO uses a fixed test load size, larger ovens
with higher thermal mass will have a higher measured IEAO.
As a result, DOE considered available data to characterize the
relationship between energy use and oven cavity volume.
For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE established the slopes by first
evaluating the data from the previous rulemaking analysis described in
the 2009 TSD, which presented the relationship between measured energy
factor (``EF'') and cavity volume, then translating from EF to
IEAO, considering the range of cavity volumes for the
majority of products available on the market as well as testing of
units in DOE's test sample. The intercepts for each efficiency level
were then chosen so that the equations passed through the desired
IEAO corresponding to a particular volume. 81 FR 60784,
60821-60822. As part of the analysis for the December 2020 NOPD, DOE
updated the intercepts in the IEAO versus cavity volume
relationships for each product class to reflect the revisions to the
efficiency levels made in that analysis.
In this SNOPR, DOE further updated the efficiency levels, and
associated IEAO intercepts. Additional discussion of DOE's
derivation of the oven IEAO versus cavity volume
relationship is presented in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
2. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the product on
the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using physical and
catalog teardowns. The resulting bill of materials provides the basis
for the manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') estimates.
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
For the December 2020 NOPD, DOE maintained its estimates for the
incremental MPCs developed for the September 2016 SNOPR, but adjusted
the cost-efficiency results to reflect updates to parts pricing
estimates and the most recent PPI data. 85 FR 80982, 81018. DOE also
updated the cost-efficiency results to reflect the revised efficiency
levels in that analysis. Id. The estimates for the incremental MPCs
considered in the December 2020 NOPD are presented in Table IV.23.
Table IV.23--December 2020 NOPD Conventional Cooking Top Incremental Manufacturing Production Costs
[2018$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric open (coil) Electric smooth element
NOPD level element cooking tops cooking tops Gas cooking tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................................. ....................... ....................... ..................
1......................................... ....................... $0.69 ..................
2......................................... ....................... 1.81 ..................
3......................................... ....................... 198.33 ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this SNOPR, DOE developed the cost-efficiency results for each
conventional cooking top product class with incremental efficiency
levels shown in Table IV.24 and Table IV.25. DOE developed incremental
MPCs based on manufacturing cost modeling of units in its sample
featuring the design options.
[[Page 6851]]
As discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR, DOE evaluated
two versions of the optimized burner and grate design option,
representative of a minimum of either 4 or 1 HIR burners. DOE's testing
showed that decreased energy use could be correlated to burner design
and cooking top configuration (e.g., grate weight, flame angle,
distance from burner ports to the cooking surface). Because this design
option effectively corresponds to a whole burner and grate system re-
design, regardless of the efficiency level achieved by the re-design,
the incremental costs for EL 1 and for EL 2 for gas cooking tops
include the cost for redesigning the combination of each burner and
grate configuration. Therefore, DOE was not able to determine different
incremental costs for EL 1 and EL 2 for gas cooking tops.
Table IV.24--Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops Incremental
Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental MPC
Level Design option (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ Baseline + Low- $2.17
Standby-Loss
Electronic Controls.
2............................ 1 + Improved 11.05
Resistance Heating
Elements.
3............................ 1 + Highest Active 263.19
Mode Efficiency
(Induction).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.25--Gas Cooking Tops Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental MPC
Level Design option (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ Baseline + Optimized $12.41
Burner/Improved
Grates (Achievable
with 4 or more HIR
burners and
continuous cast-iron
grates).
2............................ Maximum Measured 12.41
Efficiency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Conventional Ovens
For the December 2020 NOPD, DOE maintained its estimates for the
incremental MPCs developed for the September 2016 SNOPR, but adjusted
the cost-efficiency results to reflect updates to parts pricing
estimates and the most recent PPI data. 85 FR 80982, 81019. DOE also
updated the cost-efficiency results to reflect the efficiency levels in
that analysis. Id. The estimates for the incremental MPCs considered in
the December 2020 NOPD are presented in Table IV.26.
Table IV.26--December 2020 NOPD Conventional Oven Incremental Manufacturing Production Costs
[2018$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric ovens Gas ovens
NOPD level ---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Self-clean Standard Self-clean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................
1............................................... $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81
2............................................... 2.73 26.97 6.00 21.35
3............................................... 7.91 58.68 8.40 ..............
4............................................... 10.31 .............. 28.94 ..............
5............................................... 36.48 .............. .............. ..............
6............................................... 68.19 .............. .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this SNOPR, DOE developed the cost-efficiency results for each
conventional oven product class shown in Table IV.27 and Table IV.28.
DOE developed incremental MPCs based on manufacturing cost modeling of
units in its sample featuring the design options. DOE notes that the
estimated incremental MPCs are equivalent for the freestanding and
built-in/slide-in oven product classes and for the standard and self-
clean oven product classes because none of the considered design
options would be implemented differently as a function of installation
configuration or self-clean functionality.
Table IV.27--Electric Oven Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental MPC
Level Design option (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ Baseline + SMPS...... $2.03
2............................ 1 + Forced Convection 34.11
3............................ 2 + Oven Separator... 67.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6852]]
Table IV.28--Gas Oven Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental MPC
Level Design option (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ Baseline + SMPS...... $2.17
2............................ 1 + Forced Convection 24.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the manufacturer production costs for consumer
conventional cooking products used in this analysis.
4. Manufacturer Selling Price
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC.
The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') is the price at
which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed
an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'') 10-K reports filed by publicly traded
manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose
combined product range includes consumer conventional cooking products.
See chapter 12 of the TSD for this SNOPR for additional detail on the
manufacturer markup.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution
chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the
engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC
and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies
mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit.
For consumer conventional cooking products, the main parties in the
distribution chain are (1) the manufacturers of the products; (2) the
retailers purchasing the products from manufacturers and selling them
to consumers; and (3) the consumers who purchase the products.
For retailers, DOE developed separate markups for baseline products
(baseline markups) and for the incremental cost of more efficient
products (incremental markups). Incremental markups are coefficients
that relate the change in the MSP of higher-efficiency models to the
change in the retailer sales price. Baseline markups are applied to the
price of products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups
are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-
efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental
markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to
maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or
amended standards.\39\ DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census
Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the
same retail markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost
would result in higher per-unit operating profit for retailers.
While such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in markets
that are reasonably competitive it is unlikely that standards would
lead to a sustainable increase in profitability for retailers in the
long run.
\40\ U.S. Census, 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey (ARTS),
Electronics and Appliance Stores sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on microeconomic theory, the degree to which firms can pass
along a cost increase depends on the level of market competition,
including variables such as the market structure and conditions on both
the supply and demand sides (e.g., supply and demand elasticity). DOE
examined industry data from IBISWorld and determined the results
suggest that the industry groups involved in appliance retail exhibit a
fair degree of competition even though three firms occupy approximately
85 percent of the market.\41\ However DOE notes that, consumer demand
for household appliances is relatively inelastic (i.e., demand is not
expected to decrease substantially with an increase in the price of
product). Under relatively competitive markets with elastic demand, it
may be tenable for retailers to maintain a fixed markup for a short
period of time after an input price increase, but the market
competition should eventually force them to readjust their markups to
reach a medium-term equilibrium in which per-unit profit is relatively
unchanged before and after standards are implemented. DOE developed the
incremental markup approach based on the widely accepted economic view
that firms are not able to sustain a persistently higher dollar margin
in a competitive market in the medium term. Under competitive market
conditions, if the price of the product increases under standards, the
only way to maintain the same dollar margin as before is for the markup
(and percent gross margin) to decline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ IBISWorld. US Industry Reports (NAICS): 45211--Department
Stores; 44311--Consumer Electronics Stores; 44411--Home Improvement
Stores; 42362 TV & Appliance Retailers in the US. 2022. IBISWorld.
(Last accessed February 1, 2022.) www.ibisworld.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 6 of the TSD for this SNOPR provides details on DOE's
development of retail markups for consumer conventional cooking
products DOE requests comment on the markup analysis described above.
E. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of consumer conventional cooking products at
different efficiencies in representative U.S. single-family homes,
multi-family residences, and to assess the energy savings potential of
increased consumer conventional cooking product efficiency. The energy
use analysis estimates the range of energy use of consumer conventional
cooking products in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by
consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other
analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings
and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from
adoption of amended or new standards.
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE used the 2009 California Residential
Appliance Saturation Survey (``RASS'') and a Florida Solar Energy
Center (``FSEC'') study to establish representative annual energy use
values for conventional cooking tops and ovens.
DOE established a range of energy use from data in the EIA's 2015
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS 2015'').\42\ RECS 2015
does not provide the annual energy consumption of cooking tops, but it
does provide the frequency of cooking top use.\43\ DOE
[[Page 6853]]
was unable to use the frequency of use to calculate the annual energy
consumption using a bottom-up approach, as data in RECS 2015 did not
include information about the duration of a cooking event to allow for
an annual energy use calculation. For the December 2020 NOPD, DOE
relied on California RASS 2009 and FSEC data to establish the average
annual energy consumption of a conventional cooking top and a
conventional oven.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2015 RECS
Survey Data (2019). Available at: www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/ residential/data/2015/. RECS 2015 is based on a sample of 5,686
households statistically selected to represent 118.2 million housing
units in the United States. Available at: www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/.
\43\ DOE was unable to use the frequency of use to calculate the
annual energy consumption using a bottom-up approach, as data in
RECS did not include information about the duration of a cooking
event to allow for an annual energy use calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From RECS 2015, DOE developed household samples for each product
class. For each household using a conventional cooking top and a
conventional oven, RECS provides data on the frequency of use and
number of meals cooked in the following bins: (1) less than once per
week, (2) once per week, (3) a few times per week, (4) once per day,
(5) two times per day, and (6) three or more times per day. DOE
utilized the frequency of use to define the variability of the annual
energy consumption. First, DOE assumed that the weighted-average
cooking frequency from RECS represents the average energy use values
based on the California RASS and FSEC data. DOE then varied the annual
energy consumption across the RECS households based on their reported
cooking frequency relative to the weighted-average cooking frequency.
AHAM stated that consumer cooking behavior is still the most
significant factor in the energy use of consumer conventional cooking
products. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs commented that the COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally
altered cooking behavior in households across the country. (CA IOUs,
No. 89 at p. 3) The CA IOUs cited a December 2020 survey of more than
1,000 demographically and geographically representative participants
conducted by HUNTER,\44\ in which over 54 percent of responders
reported that they cooked more at home compared to before the pandemic,
with 51-71 percent of responders intending to continue cooking at home,
even after the pandemic is over. (Id.) The CA IOUs also cited a survey
by International Food Information Council,\45\ in which nearly 60
percent of responders stated they are cooking at home more as a result
of the pandemic, and a separate PG&E survey \46\ in which 28 percent of
responders claiming that cooking had been the most likely factor which
contributed to increased energy use in their home during the pandemic.
(Id.) The CA IOUs added that DOE's use of the 2015 RECS to estimate
operating hours for cooking tops does not account for these changing
use trends. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ HUNTER: FOOD STUDY 2020 SPECIAL REPORT (America Gets
Cooking: The Impact of COVID-19 on Americans' Food Habits),
published in December 2020. Available at www.hunterpr.com/foodstudy_coronavirus/.
\45\ International Food Information Council. 2020 Food & Health
Survey. 10 June 2020. Available at www.foodinsight.org/2020-food-and-health-survey/.
\46\ PG&E administered survey results, November 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE agrees that cooking behavior is a significant factor for
determining the energy use of consumer conventional cooking products.
Although, the pandemic has likely introduced changes to consumers
lifestyle, there is insufficient data at this time to establish a
definite trend originating from the pandemic. If appropriate data from
the 2020 RECS are available for the final rule analysis, DOE will
evaluate the extent to which the data may have been affected by changes
in cooking usage due to the pandemic. DOE notes that an increase in
consumer cooking product usage would translate into increased energy
savings and monetized benefits relative to the reference estimates
presented in this SNOPR.
DOE requests comment on data and information on how the pandemic
has changed consumer cooking behavior and product usage.
For this SNOPR, DOE updated the datasets used to establish average
annual energy consumption values for cooking tops and ovens. DOE
utilized the 2019 California RASS \47\ and 2021 field-metered data from
the Pecan Street Project \48\ to estimate representative annual energy
use values for conventional cooking tops and ovens. Pecan Street
measures circuit-level electricity use at 1-minute resolution from
volunteer households across multiple states. From the Pecan Street
data, DOE performed an analysis of 39 households in Texas and 28
households in New York to derive develop average annual energy
consumption values for each State. In the absence of similar field-
metered data for other States, DOE weighted the average annual energy
use results from California (from CA RASS 2019), Texas, and New York by
the number of households in each State to estimate an average National
energy use value more representative than any individual State
measurement. DOE calculated a household-weighted National value using
the average values from Texas, New York, and California and estimates
for the number of households in each State from the U.S. Census.\49\
DOE retained the methodology used in the NOPD to establish a range in
energy use values using RECS 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ California Energy Commission, Residential Appliance
Saturation Survey (RASS) (2019).
\48\ Pecan Street Dataset. www.pecanstreet.org/category/dataport/ (last accessed June 28, 2022).
\49\ U.S. Census. data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=households%20by%20state&tid=ACSDT5Y2020.B10063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 7 of the TSD for this SNOPR provides details on DOE's
energy use analysis for consumer conventional cooking products.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking products. The effect of new or amended
energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves
a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE
used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them
over the lifetime of the product.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the
estimated efficiency distribution of consumer conventional cooking
products in the absence of new or amended energy conservation
standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given efficiency level is
measured relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of
housing units. As stated previously, DOE developed household samples
from the 2015 RECS. For each sample household, DOE determined the
energy consumption for the consumer conventional cooking
[[Page 6854]]
products and the appropriate energy price. By developing a
representative sample of households, the analysis captured the
variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the
use of consumer conventional cooking products.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to
the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created
distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales
taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their
uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte
Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from
the probability distributions and consumer conventional cooking product
user samples. For this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is
implemented in MS Excel together with the Crystal BallTM
add-on.\50\ The model calculated the LCC for products at each
efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per simulation run. The
analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing
the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the
no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an
iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product
efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen product
efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard
level under consideration, the LCC calculation reveals that a consumer
is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who
already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the
potential benefits from increasing product efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Crystal BallTM is commercially available
software tool to facilitate the creation of these types of models by
generating probability distributions and summarizing results within
Excel, available at www.oracle.com/middleware/technologies/crystalball.html (last accessed June 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for consumers of conventional
cooking products as if each were to purchase a new product in the
expected year of required compliance with new or amended standards. New
and amended standards would apply to consumer conventional cooking
products manufactured 3 years after the date on which any new or
amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) At this
time, DOE estimates publication of a final rule in 2023. Therefore, for
purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2027 as the first year of compliance
with any amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products.
Table IV.29 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The paragraphs that follow
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8
of the TSD for this SNOPR and its appendices.
Table IV.29--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost................. Derived by multiplying MPCs by
manufacturer and retailer markups and
sales tax, as appropriate. Used
historical data to derive a price
scaling index to project product costs.
Installation Costs........... Baseline installation cost determined
with data from RS Means. Assumed no
change with efficiency level.
Annual Energy Use............ The total annual energy use multiplied by
the hours per year. Average number of
hours based on field data.
Variability: Based on the 2015 RECS.
Energy Prices................ Electricity: Based on Edison Electric
Institute data for 2021.
Natural Gas: Based on EIA's Natural Gas
Navigator for 2020.
Variability: Regional energy prices by
Census Division.
Energy Price Trends.......... Based on AEO2022 price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs. Assumed no change with efficiency level.
Product Lifetime............. Average: 16.8 years for electric units
and 14.5 years for gas units.
Discount Rates............... Approach involves identifying all
possible debt or asset classes that
might be used to purchase the considered
appliances, or might be affected
indirectly. Primary data source was the
Federal Reserve Board's Survey of
Consumer Finances.
Compliance Date.............. 2027.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources
mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the
table or in chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
1. Product Cost
To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described
previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for
baseline products and higher-efficiency products, because DOE applies
an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-
efficiency products.
To project future product prices, DOE examined the electric and gas
cooking products Producer Price Index (``PPI''). These indices,
adjusted for inflation, show a declining trend. DOE performed a power-
law fit of historical PPI data and cumulative shipments. For the
electric cooking products price trend, DOE used the ``Electric
household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and equipment'' PPI for
1967-2021.\51\ For the gas cooking product price trend, DOE used the
``Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and equipment''
for 1981-2021.\52\ See chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Electric household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and
equipment PPI series ID: PCU33522033522011; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
\52\ Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units, and
equipment PPI series ID; PCU33522033522013; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE used data from
the 2021
[[Page 6855]]
RS Means Mechanical Cost Data \53\ on labor requirements to estimate
installation costs for consumer conventional cooking products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ RS Means Company Inc., RS Means Mechanical Cost Data
(2021). Available at https://rsmeans.com (last accessed on June 23,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, DOE estimated that installation costs would be the same
for different efficiency levels. In the case of electric smooth element
cooking tops, the induction heating at EL 3 requires a change of
cookware to those that are ferromagnetic to operate the cooking tops in
addition to an upgrade to existing electrical wiring to accommodate for
a higher amperage. DOE treated this as additional installation cost for
this particular design option. DOE used average number of pots and pans
utilized by a representative household to estimate this portion of the
installation cost. See chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR for details
about this component.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy consumption
for a consumer conventional cooking product at different efficiency
levels using the approach described previously in section IV.E of this
document.
4. Energy and Gas Prices
Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the
incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher
efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change
in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE
applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the product
purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices
for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other
efficiency levels considered.
DOE derived electricity prices in 2021 using data from the Edison
Electric Institute (``EEI'') Typical Bills and Average Rates reports.
Based upon comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, this semi-annual
report presents typical monthly electric bills and average kilowatt-
hour costs to the customer as charged by investor-owned utilities. For
the residential sector, DOE calculated electricity prices using the
methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki (2018).\54\ For the
commercial sector, DOE calculated electricity prices using the
methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki (2019).\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential Electricity
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001169.
ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review.
\55\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Non-residential
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-
2001203. ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE obtained data for calculating regional prices of natural gas
from the EIA publication, Natural Gas Navigator.56 This
publication presents monthly volumes of natural gas deliveries and
average prices by state for residential, commercial, and industrial
customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Natural Gas Navigator 2020. Available at
www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.php (last accessed November 14, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's methodology allows electricity prices to vary by sector,
region and season. In the analysis, variability in electricity prices
is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer economic and
energy use characteristics are defined in the LCC analysis. For
consumer conventional cooking products, DOE calculated weighted-average
values for average and marginal electricity and gas price for the nine
census divisions. See chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR for details.
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2021
energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes for
each of the nine census divisions from the Reference case in AEO2022,
which has an end year of 2050.\57\ To estimate price trends after 2050,
DOE used constant value calculated from a simple average of the price
trend between 2046 through 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050.
Washington, DC. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ (last
accessed June 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product
components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Typically,
small incremental increases in product efficiency produce no, or only
minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline
efficiency products.
For gas ovens, DOE determined the repair and maintenance costs
associated with glo-bar ignition systems. DOE estimated the average
repair cost attributable to glo-bar systems and annualized it over the
life of the unit at $22.58 based on an analysis of available online
data found on appliance repair costs.
DOE seeks feedback and comment on its estimate for repair costs for
consumer conventional cooking products.
6. Product Lifetime
Equipment lifetime is the age at which the equipment is retired
from service. DOE used a variety of sources to establish low, average,
and high estimates for product lifetime. Additionally, DOE used AHAM's
input to the December 2020 NOPD on the average useful life by product
categories, such as electric range, gas range, wall oven, and electric
cooking top. Utilizing this detail and the market shares of these
product categories, DOE refined the average lifetime estimates to a
more representative 16.8 years for all electric cooking products and
14.5 years for all gas cooking products. DOE characterized the product
lifetimes with Weibull probability distributions.
DOE requests comment and additional data on its estimates for the
lifetime distribution.
See chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR for further details on the
sources used to develop product lifetimes, as well as the use of
Weibull distributions.
7. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate
to households to estimate the present value of future operating cost
savings. DOE estimated a distribution of discount rates for consumer
conventional cooking products based on the opportunity cost of consumer
funds.
DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount
rates.\58\ The LCC analysis estimates net present value over the
lifetime of the product, so the appropriate discount rate will reflect
the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking this time scale
into account. Given the long-time horizon modeled in the LCC analysis,
the application of a marginal interest rate associated with an initial
source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase,
consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their
[[Page 6856]]
debt and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the
restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the
relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE
estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical
distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the
influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a
consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is
not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of
factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the
opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data
from the Federal Reserve Board's triennial Survey of Consumer Finances
\59\ (``SCF'') starting in 1995 and ending in 2019. Using the SCF and
other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for each type of
debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that may apply in
the year in which amended standards would take effect. DOE assigned
each sample household a specific discount rate drawn from one of the
distributions. The average rate across all types of household debt and
equity and income groups, weighted by the shares of each type, is 4.3
percent. See chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR for further details on
the development of consumer discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010,
2013, 2016, and 2019. (Last accessed June 28, 2022.)
www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected
distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-
standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy
conservation standards) in the compliance year (2027).
For cooking tops, DOE estimated the current efficiency distribution
for each product class from the sample of cooking tops used to develop
the engineering analysis. For ovens, DOE relied on model counts of the
current market distribution. Given the lack of data on historic
efficiency trends, DOE assumed that the estimated current distributions
would apply in 2027.
While DOE acknowledges that economic factors may play a role when
consumers decide on what type of conventional cooking product to
install, assignment of conventional cooking product efficiency for a
given installation, based solely on economic measures such as life-
cycle cost or simple payback period most likely would not fully and
accurately reflect actual real-world installations. There are a number
of market failures discussed in the economics literature that
illustrate how purchasing decisions with respect to energy efficiency
are unlikely to be perfectly correlated with energy use, as described
below. DOE maintains that the method of assignment, which is in part
random, is a reasonable approach, one that simulates behavior in the
conventional cooking product market, where market failures result in
purchasing decisions not being perfectly aligned with economic
interests, more realistically than relying only on apparent cost-
effectiveness criteria derived from the limited information in RECS.
DOE further emphasizes that its approach does not assume that all
purchasers of conventional cooking product make economically irrational
decisions (i.e., the lack of a correlation is not the same as a
negative correlation). As part of the random assignment, some homes or
buildings with more frequent cooking events will be assigned higher
efficiency conventional cooking products, and some homes or buildings
with particularly lower cooking events will be assigned baseline units.
By using this approach, DOE acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in
the data and minimizes any bias in the analysis by using random
assignment, as opposed to assuming certain market conditions that are
unsupported given the available evidence.
First, consumers are motivated by more than simple financial trade-
offs. There are consumers who are willing to pay a premium for more
energy-efficient products because they are environmentally
conscious.\60\ There are also several behavioral factors that can
influence the purchasing decisions of complicated multi-attribute
products, such as conventional cooking products. For example, consumers
(or decision makers in an organization) are highly influenced by choice
architecture, defined as the framing of the decision, the surrounding
circumstances of the purchase, the alternatives available, and how
they're presented for any given choice scenario.\61\ The same consumer
or decision maker may make different choices depending on the
characteristics of the decision context (e.g., the timing of the
purchase), which have nothing to do with the characteristics of the
alternatives themselves or their prices. Consumers or decision makers
also face a variety of other behavioral phenomena including loss
aversion, sensitivity to information salience, and other forms of
bounded rationality.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Ward, D.O., Clark, C.D., Jensen, K.L., Yen, S.T., &
Russell, C.S. (2011): ``Factors influencing willingness-to pay for
the ENERGY STAR[supreg] label,'' Energy Policy, 39(3), 1450-1458.
(Available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510009171) (Last accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
\61\ Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., and Balz, J.P. (2014).
``Choice Architecture'' in The Behavioral Foundations of Public
Policy, Eldar Shafir (ed).
\62\ Thaler, R.H., and Bernartzi, S. (2004). ``Save More
Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics in Increase Employee Savings,''
Journal of Political Economy 112(1), S164-S187. See also Klemick,
H., et al. (2015) ``Heavy-Duty Trucking and the Energy Efficiency
Paradox: Evidence from Focus Groups and Interviews,'' Transportation
Research Part A: Policy & Practice, 77, 154-166. (providing evidence
that loss aversion and other market failures can affect otherwise
profit-maximizing firms).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first of these market failures--the split-incentive or
principal-agent problem--is likely to affect conventional cooking
products more than many other types of appliances. The principal-agent
problem is a market failure that results when the consumer that
purchases the equipment does not internalize all of the costs
associated with operating the equipment. Instead, the user of the
product, who has no control over the purchase decision, pays the
operating costs. There is a high likelihood of split incentive problems
in the case of rental properties where the landlord makes the choice of
what conventional cooking product to install, whereas the renter is
responsible for paying energy bills.
Attari et al.\63\ show that consumers tend to underestimate the
energy use of large energy-intensive appliances, but overestimate the
energy use of small appliances. This may affect how consumers evaluate
and purchase available products on the market. Therefore, it is likely
that consumers systematically underestimate the energy use associated
with conventional cooking products, resulting in less cost-effective
purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Attari, S.Z., M.L. DeKay, C.I. Davidson, and W. Bruine de
Bruin (2010): ``Public perceptions of energy consumption and
savings.'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(37),
16054-16059 (Available at: www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16054) (Last
accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These market failures affect a sizeable share of the consumer
population. A study by Houde \64\ indicates that there is a non-
negligible subset of consumers
[[Page 6857]]
that appear to purchase appliances without taking into account their
energy efficiency and operating costs at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Houde, S. (2018): ``How Consumers Respond to Environmental
Certification and the Value of Energy Information,'' The RAND
Journal of Economics, 49 (2), 453-477 (Available at:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1756-2171.12231) (Last
accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment and feedback on its efficiency assignment in
the LCC analysis.
The estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case for
consumer conventional cooking products in 2027 are shown in Table IV.30
through Table IV.32. See chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR for
further information on the derivation of the efficiency distributions.
Table IV.30--Cooking Top Market Shares for the No-New Standards Case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric open (coil) element cooking tops Electric smooth element cooking tops Gas cooking tops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAEC (kWh/ Market share IAEC (kWh/ Market share IAEC (kBtu/ Market share
Standard level year) (%) Standard level year) (%) Standard level year) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... 199 100 Baseline......... 250 20 Baseline......... 1,775 48
............ ............ 1................ 207 50 1................ 1,440 48
............ ............ 2................ 189 25 2................ 1,204 4
............ ............ 3................ 179 5 ................. ............ ............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.31--Conventional Electric Oven Product Market Shares for the No-New Standards Case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard ovens Self-clean ovens
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freestanding Built-in/slide-in Freestanding Built-in/slide-in
Efficiency level ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEAO (kWh/ Market share IEAO (kWh/ Market share IEAO (kWh/ Market share IEAO (kWh/ Market share
year) (%) year) (%) year) (%) year) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................ 314.7 5 321.2 5 354.4 5 360.5 5
1....................................... 302.0 57 308.9 65 341.7 18 348.1 7
2....................................... 289.0 38 295.9 30 328.7 77 335.1 86
3....................................... 235.3 0 242.1 0 275.0 0 281.4 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.32--Conventional Gas Oven Product Market Shares for the No-New Standards Case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard ovens Self-clean ovens
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freestanding Built-in/slide-in Freestanding Built-in/slide-in
Efficiency level ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEAO (kBtu/ Market share IEAO (kBtu/ Market share IEAO (kBtu/ Market share IEAO (kBtu/ Market share
year) (%) year) (%) year) (%) year) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................ 2,085 4 2,104 4 1,958 4 1,979 4
1....................................... 2,041 34 2,062 58 1,915 3 1,937 19
2....................................... 1,908 62 1,929 38 1,781 93 1,804 77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment and feedback on its estimate for the no-new-
standards case efficiency distribution.
9. Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of time (expressed in years) it
takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-
efficient products, compared to baseline products, through energy cost
savings. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product mean that
the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced
operating expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the
change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. DOE
refers to this as a ``simple PBP'' because it does not consider changes
over time in operating cost savings. The PBP calculation uses the same
inputs as the LCC analysis when deriving first-year operating costs.
As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that
a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the
additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with
an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the
value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard,
as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE
determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test
procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price
projection for the year in which compliance with the new and amended
standards would be required.
G. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation
standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\65\
The shipments model takes an accounting approach, tracking market
shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the stock.
Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age
distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The age
[[Page 6858]]
distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to
calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for any
year depend on the age distribution of the stock. The shipment
projections are based on historical data and an analysis of key market
drivers for each product. For consumer conventional cooking products,
DOE accounted for three market segments: (1) new construction, (2)
existing homes (i.e., replacing failed products), and (3) retired but
not replaced products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general,
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine new construction shipments, DOE used a forecast of new
housing coupled with product market saturation data for new housing.
For new housing completions and mobile home placements, DOE adopted the
projections from EIA's AEO2022 through 2050. For subsequent years, DOE
set the annual new housing completions fixed to the 2050 value. The
market saturation data for new housing was derived from RECS 2015.
DOE estimated replacements using product retirement functions
developed from product lifetimes. DOE used retirement functions based
on Weibull distributions. To reconcile the historical shipments with
modeled shipments, DOE assumed that every retired unit is not replaced.
DOE attributed the reason for this non-replacement to building
demolition occurring over the period 2027-2056. The not-replaced rate
is distributed across electric and gas cooking products.
DOE allocated shipments to each product class based on the current
market share of the class. DOE developed the market shares based on
data collected from Appliance Magazine Market Research report \66\ and
U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review.\67\ The product class
market shares are kept constant over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Appliance Magazine Market Research. The U.S. Appliance
Industry: Market Value, Life Expectancy & Replacement Picture 2012.
\67\ U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review: 2000 to YTD
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in the December 2020 NOPD, DOE did not estimate any fuel
switching between electric and gas cooking products, as no significant
switching was observed from historical data between 2003 to 2020.
However, DOE is aware of recent state and local policies promoting the
decarbonization of residential buildings which may impact estimates for
the distribution of shipments between electric and gas cooking products
in the no-new-standards case. Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act
(IRA) allocates $4.5 billion in rebates to cover the costs of high-
efficiency electric home upgrades, including rebates targeting electric
conventional cooking products. DOE understands that these rebates may
cause the shipments of electric conventional cooking products to
increase and gas conventional cooking products to decline in the no-
new-standards case, thus impacting economic estimates in standards
cases.\68\ Ideally, incorporating the impacts of these policies would
require data on the consumer response rebates covering conventional
cooking products offered through local policies and the IR A rebates.
The implementation and consumer response to these policies is still
nascent and has not yet shown an impact on available shipments data.
However, other forecasts and data may prove useful in informing an
analysis that recognizes the likely sizeable impact the IRA will have
in incentivizing GHG reducing fuel-switching choices among cooking
product consumers, independent of the standards proposed in this
action. DOE will continue to explore possible avenues for such analysis
in anticipation of the final rule. If DOE receives or discovers through
further exploration, information and data (including its own cooking
specific modeling as program designs are established under the IRA),
DOE may consider a sensitivity scenario or other analytic approach
based on comments received on IRA and other policies promoting
electrification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ U. S. Department of Energy Press Release Pertaining to the
Inflation Reduction Act's Direct Consumer Rebates. See https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-state-and-tribe-allocations-home-energy-rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the distribution between electric and gas
cooking products over the shipments analysis period and the potential
for fuel switching between electric and gas cooking products.
Specifically, DOE requests data on existing policy incentives for
consumers to switch fuels and data that indicates the number of
consumers switching fuel types between electric and gas cooking
products.
DOE considered the impact of standards on product shipments. DOE
concluded that it is unlikely that the price increase due to the
proposed standards would impact the decision to install a cooking
product in the new construction market. In the replacement market, DOE
assumed that, in response to an increased product price, some consumers
will choose to repair their old cooking product and extend its lifetime
instead of replacing it immediately. DOE estimated the magnitude of
such impact through a purchase price elasticity of demand. The
estimated price elasticity of -0.367 is based on data for cooking
products as described in appendix 9A of the TSD for this SNOPR. This
elasticity relates the repair or replace decision to the incremental
installed cost of higher efficiency cooking products. DOE estimated
that the average extension of life of the repaired unit would be 5
years, and then that unit will be replaced with a new cooking unit.
The second-hand market for used appliances is a potential
alternative to consumers purchasing a new unit or repairing a broken
unit. An increase in the purchases of older, less-efficient second-hand
units due to a price increase due to a standard could potentially
decrease projected energy savings. DOE assumed that purchases on the
second-hand market would not change significantly due to a standard and
did not include their impact on product shipments.
DOE requests data on the market size and typical selling price of
units sold through the second-hand market for cooking products.
For further details on the shipments analysis, please refer to
chapter 9 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
DOE welcomes input on the effect of new and amended standards on
impacts across products within the same fuel class and equipment type.
DOE seeks comment on the general approach to its shipments
methodology.
H. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the national energy savings (i.e., NES) and the
NPV from a national perspective of total consumer costs and savings
that would be expected to result from new or amended standards at
specific efficiency levels.\69\ (``Consumer'' in this context refers to
consumers of the product being regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and
NPV for the potential standard levels considered based on projections
of annual product shipments, along with the annual energy consumption
and total installed cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses. For
the present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, operating cost
savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime
of consumer conventional cooking products sold from 2027 through 2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S.
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each
product class in
[[Page 6859]]
the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. For this
projection, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and various
forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. DOE
compares the no-new-standards case with projections characterizing the
market for each product class if DOE adopted new or amended standards
at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or standards
cases) for that class. For the standards cases, DOE considers how a
given standard would likely affect the market shares of products with
efficiencies greater than the standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and
the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities
within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values
(as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
Table IV.33 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the SNOPR. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows
the table. See chapter 10 of the TSD for this SNOPR for further
details.
Table IV.33--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.................... Annual shipments from shipments model.
Compliance Date of Standard.. 2027.
Efficiency Trends............ No-new-standards case: No efficiency
trend.
Standards cases: No efficiency trend.
Annual Energy Consumption per Annual weighted-average values are a
Unit. function of energy use at each TSL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average values are a
function of cost at each TSL.
Incorporates projection of future product
prices based on historical data.
Annual Energy Cost per Unit.. Annual weighted-average values as a
function of the annual energy
consumption per unit and energy prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost Annual values do not change with
per Unit. efficiency level.
Energy Price Trends.......... AEO2022 projections (to 2050) and
constant value based on average between
2046-2050 thereafter.
Energy Site-to-Primary and A time-series conversion factor based on
FFC Conversion. AEO2022.
Discount Rate................ 3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year................. 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Product Efficiency Trends
A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards
cases. Section IV.F.8 of this document describes how DOE developed an
energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which
yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the
considered product classes for the year of anticipated compliance with
an amended or new standard. DOE assumed a static efficiency
distribution over the shipments analysis period.
For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards
are assumed to become effective (2027). In this scenario, the market
shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the
standard under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard
level, and the market share of products above the standard would remain
unchanged.
2. National Energy Savings
The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of
national energy consumption of the considered products between each
trial standards case (or TSL) and the case with no new or amended
energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy
consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product
(by vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage).
DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy
consumption for the no-new standards case and for each higher
efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings
based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and
savings to primary energy (i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to
generate site electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from
AEO2022. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year
over the timeframe of the analysis.
Use of higher-efficiency products is sometimes associated with a
direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of
the product due to the increase in efficiency. DOE did not find any
data on the rebound effect specific to consumer conventional cooking
products.
DOE seeks feedback on its assumption of no rebound effect
associated with the use of more efficient conventional cooking products
as a result of a standard.
In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences,
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and
emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the
approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a
statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination
that EIA's National Energy Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most
appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for
that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain,
multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \70\
that EIA uses to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors
incorporate losses in production and delivery in the case of natural
gas (including fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to
produce and deliver the various fuels used by power plants. The
approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use and emissions is
described in appendix 10B of the TSD for this SNOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/documentation/archive/pdf/0581(2009).pdf (last accessed July 11, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEI commented that values for full-fuel-cycle energy estimates for
electricity are extremely overstated,
[[Page 6860]]
especially for consumers in states with renewable portfolio standards.
(EEI, No. 83 at pp. 61-62) EEI added that the values in the December
2020 NOPD use outdated information, are more accurate of a national
average, and are not very representative of what many consumers are
going to see. (Id.) EEI also noted that other standards are
increasingly using regional values. (Id.)
As previously mentioned, DOE converts electricity consumption and
savings to primary energy using annual conversion factors derived from
the AEO. Traditionally, EIA has used the fossil fuel equivalency
approach to report noncombustible renewables' contribution to total
primary energy, in part because the resulting shares of primary energy
are closer to the shares of generated electricity.\71\ The fossil fuel
equivalency approach applies an annualized weighted-average heat rate
for fossil fuel power plants to the electricity generated (in kWh) from
noncombustible renewables. EIA recognizes that using captured energy
(the net energy available for direct consumption after transformation
of a noncombustible renewable energy into electricity) or incident
energy (the mechanical, radiation, or thermal energy that is measurable
as the ``input'' to the device) are possible approaches for converting
renewable electricity to a common measure of primary energy,\72\ but it
continues to use the fossil fuel equivalency approach in the AEO and
other reporting of energy statistics. DOE contends that it is important
for it to maintain consistency with EIA in DOE's accounting of primary
energy savings from energy efficiency standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Without adjusting primary energy for fossil fuel
equivalence, the noncombustible renewable share of total energy
consumption for utility-scale electricity generation in 2018 would
have bene 6 percent instead of the 15-percent share under the fossil
fuel equivalency approach. On a physical units basis, net generation
from noncombustible renewable energy sources was 16 percent of total
utility-scale net generation in the same year. www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41013 (last accessed June 28, 2022).
\72\ See: www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_28.pdf
(last accessed June 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs),
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and
savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between
the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total
savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs.
DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product
shipped during the projection period.
As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this document, DOE developed
separate product price trends for electric and gas cooking products
based on a power-law fit of historical PPI data and cumulative
shipments. For the electric cooking products price trend, DOE used the
``Electric household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and
equipment'' PPI for 1967-2021.\73\ For the gas cooking product price
trend, DOE used the ``Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking
units and equipment'' for 1981-2021.\74\ DOE applied the same trends to
project prices for each product class at each considered efficiency
level. By 2056, which is the end date of the projection period, the
average product price is projected to drop 17 percent relative to 2027
for electric cooking products, and 25 percent for gas cooking products.
DOE's projection of product prices is described in chapter 8 of the TSD
for this SNOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Electric household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units and
equipment PPI series ID: PCU33522033522011; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
\74\ Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking units, and
equipment PPI series ID; PCU33522033522013; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend
estimates, DOE investigated the impact of different product price
projections on the consumer NPV for the considered TSLs for consumer
conventional cooking products. In addition to the default price trend,
DOE considered two product price sensitivity cases: (1) a high price
decline case based on a learning rate derived from subset of PPI data
for the period 1993-2021 for electric cooking products and the period
1981-2001 for gas cooking products (2) a low price decline case based
on a learning rate derived from a subset of PPI data from the period of
1967-1992 for electric cooking products and the period 2002-2021 for
gas cooking products. The derivation of these price trends and the
results of these sensitivity cases are described in appendix 10C of the
TSD for this SNOPR.
The energy cost savings are calculated using the estimated energy
savings in each year and the projected price of the appropriate form of
energy. To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the
average regional energy prices by the projection of annual national-
average residential energy price changes in the Reference case from
AEO2022, which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after
2050, DOE used a constant value derived from the average value between
2046 through 2050. As part of the NIA, DOE also analyzed scenarios that
used inputs from variants of the AEO2022 Reference case that have lower
and higher economic growth. Those cases have lower and higher energy
price trends compared to the Reference case. NIA results based on these
cases are presented in appendix 10C of the TSD for this SNOPR.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this
SNOPR, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-
percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount
rates in accordance with guidance provided by the OMB to Federal
agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.\75\ The discount
rates for the determination of NPV are in contrast to the discount
rates used in the LCC analysis, which are designed to reflect a
consumer's perspective. The 7-percent real value is an estimate of the
average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S.
economy. The 3-percent real value represents the ``social rate of time
preference,'' which is the rate at which society discounts future
consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed
July 11, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy
conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately
affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a
subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such
disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups
of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular
consumers from alternative standard levels. For this SNOPR, DOE
analyzed the impacts of the considered standard levels on two
subgroups: (1) low-income households and (2) senior-only households.
The analysis used subsets of the RECS 2015 sample composed of
households that meet the criteria for the two subgroups. While the RECS
data offers further disaggregation of these consumer subgroups by owner
or renter status, DOE only examined the overall positive LCC savings to
these consumer subgroups and did not further
[[Page 6861]]
disaggregate the data. DOE used the LCC and PBP spreadsheet model to
estimate the impacts of the considered efficiency levels on these
subgroups. Chapter 11 in the TSD for this SNOPR describes the consumer
subgroup analysis.
DOE requests comment on whether additional consumer subgroups,
including any disaggregation of the subgroups analyzed in this SNOPR,
may be disproportionately affected by a new or amended national
standard and warrant additional analysis in the final rule.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of new and
amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products and to estimate the potential impacts of
such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has
both quantitative and qualitative aspects and includes analyses of
projected industry cash flows, the INPV, investments in research and
development (``R&D'') and manufacturing capital, and domestic
manufacturing employment. Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how
new and amended energy conservation standards might affect
manufacturing employment, capacity, and competition, as well as how
standards contribute to overall regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA
serves to identify any disproportionate impacts on manufacturer
subgroups, including small business manufacturers.
The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the GRIM, an
industry cash flow model with inputs specific to this rulemaking. The
key GRIM inputs include data on the industry cost structure, unit
production costs, product shipments, manufacturer margins, and
investments in R&D and manufacturing capital required to produce
compliant products. The key GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is the sum
of industry annual cash flows over the analysis period, discounted
using the industry-weighted average cost of capital, and the impact to
domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses standard accounting
principles to estimate the impacts of more-stringent energy
conservation standards on a given industry by comparing changes in INPV
and domestic manufacturing employment between a no-new-standards case
and the various standards cases (i.e., TSLs). To capture the
uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing strategies following new
and amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible impacts
under different markup scenarios.
The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer
characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such
factors as a potential standard's impact on manufacturing capacity,
competition within the industry, the cumulative impact of other DOE and
non-DOE regulations, and the impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The
complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase
1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturing industry based on the market and
technology assessment, preliminary manufacturer interviews, and
publicly available information. This included a top-down analysis of
consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers that DOE used to
derive preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g., revenues;
materials, labor, overhead, and depreciation expenses; selling,
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''); and R&D expenses). DOE
also used public sources of information to further calibrate its
initial characterization of the consumer conventional cooking products
manufacturing industry, including company filings of form 10-K from the
SEC,\76\ corporate annual reports, the U.S. Census Bureau's Economic
Census,\77\ and reports from D&B Hoovers.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Available at www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.
\77\ Available at www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/data/tables.html.
\78\ Available at app.avention.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash-flow
analysis to quantify the potential impacts of new and amended energy
conservation standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a
series of annual cash flows starting with the announcement of the
standard and extending over a 30-year period following the compliance
date of the standard. These factors include annual expected revenues,
costs of sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures.
In general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash
flow in three distinct ways: (1) creating a need for increased
investment, (2) raising production costs per unit, and (3) altering
revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes.
In addition, during Phase 2, DOE developed interview guides to
distribute to manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products
in order to develop other key GRIM inputs, including product and
capital conversion costs, and to gather additional information on the
anticipated effects of energy conservation standards on revenues,
direct employment, capital assets, industry competitiveness, and
subgroup impacts.
In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE conducted structured, detailed
interviews with representative manufacturers. During these interviews,
DOE discussed engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial
topics to validate assumptions used in the GRIM and to identify key
issues or concerns. As part of Phase 3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of
manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by new and
amended standards or that may not be accurately represented by the
average cost assumptions used to develop the industry cash flow
analysis. Such manufacturer subgroups may include small business
manufacturers, low-volume manufacturers (``LVMs''), niche players, and/
or manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that largely differs from
the industry average. DOE identified two manufacturer subgroups for a
separate impact analysis: commercial-style manufacturers and small
business manufacturers. The commercial-style manufacturer subgroup is
discussed in section V.B.2.d of this document. The small business
subgroup is discussed in section VI.B of this document.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to new
and amended standards that result in a higher or lower industry value.
The GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash-flow analysis that
incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry
financial information as inputs. The GRIM models changes in costs,
distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins that
could result from new and amended energy conservation standards. The
GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash
flows, beginning in 2022 (the reference year of the analysis) and
continuing to 2056. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of
annual discounted cash flows during this period. For manufacturers of
consumer conventional cooking
[[Page 6862]]
products, DOE used a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, which was
derived from industry financials and then modified according to
feedback received during manufacturer interviews.
DOE requests comment on the use of 9.1 percent as an appropriate
real discount rate for consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers.
The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles
and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each
standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards
case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the new
and amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers. As
discussed previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using a number
of sources, including publicly available data, results of the
engineering analysis, and information gathered from industry
stakeholders during the course of manufacturer interviews. The GRIM
results are presented in section V.B.2 of this document. Additional
details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other financial
parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
Manufacturing more efficient products is typically more expensive
than manufacturing baseline products due to the use of more complex
components, which are typically more costly than baseline components.
The changes in the MPCs of the covered products can affect the
revenues, manufacturer margins, and cash flow of the industry.
In the MIA, DOE used the MPCs calculated in the engineering
analysis, as described in section IV.C of this document and further
detailed in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR. For this SNOPR
analysis, DOE used a design-option approach supported by testing,
supplemented by reverse engineering (physical teardowns and testing of
existing products in the market) to identify the incremental cost and
efficiency improvement associated with each design option or design
option combination. DOE used these updated MPCs from the engineering
analysis in this MIA.
b. Shipments Projections
The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by
efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time
can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the
GRIM uses the NIA's annual shipment projections derived from the
shipments analysis from 2022 (the reference year) to 2056 (the end year
of the analysis period). See chapter 9 of the TSD for this SNOPR for
additional details.
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
New or amended energy conservation standards could cause
manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their production
facilities and product designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level
of conversion-related expenditures that would be needed to comply with
each considered efficiency level in each product class. For the MIA,
DOE classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1)
product conversion costs; and (2) capital conversion costs. Product
conversion costs are investments in research, development, testing,
marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product
designs comply with new and amended energy conservation standards.
Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and
equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities
such that new compliant product designs can be fabricated and
assembled.
To evaluate the level of capital conversion costs manufacturers
would likely incur to comply with new and amended energy conservation
standards, DOE estimated the capital investments that a major and minor
consumer conventional cooking product manufacturer would be required to
make to be able to manufacture compliant products at each efficiency
levels for each product class. DOE then scaled these cost investment
estimates by the number of major and minor consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers to arrive at the industry conversion cost
estimates.
To evaluate the level of product conversion costs manufacturers
would likely incur to comply with amended energy conservation
standards, DOE estimated the number of consumer conventional cooking
product models currently on the market, the efficiency distribution of
those models on the market, the estimated testing cost to test to the
DOE test procedure (for cooking tops only), and the estimated per model
R&D costs to redesign a non-compliant model into a compliant model for
each analyzed efficiency level.
DOE used DOE's Compliance Certification Database (``CCD''),\79\
California Energy Commission's (``CEC's'') MAEDBS database,\80\ and
Canada's Natural Resources Canada database \81\ to identify consumer
conventional cooking product models covered by this rulemaking. DOE
used the efficiency distribution of the shipments analysis to estimate
the model efficiency distribution. DOE increased the cost estimates
from the August 2022 TP Final Rule \82\ based on manufacturer feedback
and used these higher per unit testing costs to estimate the per model
testing costs for cooking tops. Lastly, DOE estimated separate per
model R&D costs for each product class at each efficiency level based
on manufacturer interviews and inputs from the engineering analysis.
DOE then combined the per model testing and R&D costs with the number
of models that would need to be tested and redesigned to estimate the
industry product conversion costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data. Cooking
Product-Gas: only contains consumer conventional cooking products
that use gas as a fuel source.
\80\ Available at cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx.
\81\ Available at oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/index.cfm?action=app.welcome-bienvenue. Used to identify any
electric cooking products not identified in CEC's database, since
many major consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers sell
the same consumer conventional cooking products in the US and in
Canada.
\82\ 87 FR 51492, 51532-51533.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur
between the year of publication of the final rule and the year by which
manufacturers must comply with the new and amended standards. The
conversion cost figures used in the GRIM can be found in section V.B.2
of this document. For additional information on the estimated capital
and product conversion costs, see chapter 12 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
d. Markup Scenarios
MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor,
materials, and overhead estimated in DOE's MPCs) and all non-production
costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. To calculate
the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied manufacturer margins to the MPCs
estimated in the engineering analysis for each product class and
efficiency level. Modifying these margins in the standards case yields
different sets of impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled
two standards-case scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding the
potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers
following the implementation of new and amended energy conservation
standards: (1) a preservation of gross margin scenario; and (2) a
preservation of operating profit scenario. These
[[Page 6863]]
scenarios lead to different margins that, when applied to the MPCs,
result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts on manufacturers.
Under the preservation of gross margin scenario, DOE applied the
same ``gross margin percentage'' across all efficiency levels in the
standards-cases that is used in the no-new-standards case. This
scenario assumes that manufacturers would be able to maintain the same
margin of 17 percent, that is used in the no-new-standards case, in all
standards cases, even as the MPCs increase due to energy conservation
standards.\83\ This margin is the same margin that was used in the
December 2020 NOPD. This scenario represents the upper bound to
industry profitability under new and amended energy conservation
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ The gross margin percentage of 17 percent is based on a
manufacturer markup of 1.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, DOE modeled a
situation in which manufacturers are not able to increase per-unit
operating profit in proportion to increases in MPCs. Under this
scenario, as the MPCs increase, manufacturers reduce their margins (on
a percentage basis) to a level that maintains the no-new-standards
operating profit (in absolute dollars). The implicit assumption behind
this scenario is that the industry can only maintain its operating
profit in absolute dollars after compliance with new and amended
standards. Therefore, operating profit in percentage terms is reduced
between the no-new-standards case and the analyzed standards cases. DOE
adjusted the margins in the GRIM at each TSL to yield approximately the
same earnings before interest and taxes in the standards case in the
year after the compliance date of the new and amended standards as in
the no-new-standards case. This scenario represents the lower bound to
industry profitability under new and amended energy conservation
standards.
A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two scenarios
is presented in section V.B.2.a of this document.
K. Emissions Analysis
The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first
component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation
standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg.
The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on
emissions of two additional greenhouse gases, CH4 and
N2O, as well as the reductions to emissions of other gases
due to ``upstream'' activities in the fuel production chain. These
upstream activities comprise extraction, processing, and transporting
fuels to the site of combustion.
The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO2,
NOX, SO2, and Hg uses emissions factors intended
to represent the marginal impacts of the change in electricity
consumption associated with amended or new standards. The methodology
is based on results published for the AEO, including a set of side
cases that implement a variety of efficiency-related policies. The
methodology is described in appendix 13A in the TSD for this SNOPR. The
analysis presented in this notice uses projections from AEO2022. Power
sector emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel
combustion are estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas
Inventories published by the Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA'').\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The on-site operation of consumer conventional cooking products
requires combustion of fossil fuels and results in emissions of
CO2, NOX, SO2, CH4, and
N2O, where these products are used. Site emissions of these
gases were estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas
Inventories and, for NOX and SO2 emissions
intensity factors from an EPA publication.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. External Combustion
Sources. In Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42.
Fifth Edition. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Chapter
1. Available at www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ (last accessed
June 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2022 study by Stanford University (``Stanford Study''), which
measured methane emissions in 53 California homes, suggests that gas
ranges (including the gas cooking top and gas oven portions) contribute
methane emissions that were estimated to be 0.8 to 1.3 percent of gas
consumption for active (cooking) mode due to incomplete combustion and
post-meter leakage during active, standby, and off modes.\86\ Further,
a significant majority (three-quarters) of these emissions take place
during standby mode due to leakage. In active mode, the Stanford Study
noted that such emissions occurred both during steady-state operation
and during burner ignition/extinction. Gas cooking tops with standing
pilot lights released on average over 10 times the methane during each
ignition event than those with electronic spark ignition. Regarding
standby mode, the Stanford Study found that 48 out of the 53 gas ranges
measured, along with their associated nearby piping, leaked some
methane continuously. The Stanford Study estimated that, over a 20-year
analysis period, the annual methane emissions from all gas-fired
consumer conventional cooking products in U.S. homes have a climate
impact comparable to the annual CO2 emissions from 500,000
automobiles. Additionally, increased methane emissions contribute to
the formation of surface level ozone which has been linked to negative
health outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ E.D. Lebel, C.J. Finnegan, Z. Ouyang, and R.B. Jackson,
``Methane and NOX Emissions from Natural Gas Stoves,
Cooktops, and Ovens in Residential Homes,'' Environmental Science
and Technology 2022, Vol. 56, pp. 2529-2539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies from the emerging field of indoor air quality have measured
emissions of additional pollutants associated with gas cooking products
not quantified in this SNOPR analysis that may potentially contribute
to negative health impacts, especially in areas with inadequate
ventilation.87 88 Such in-home emissions may be associated
with a variety of serious respiratory and cardiovascular conditions and
other health risks. Reduced in-home gas combustion may deliver
additional health benefits to consumers and their families by reducing
exposure to various pollutants. The level of health benefits may also
depend on the degree to which a household uses or has access to proper
ventilation. Although the benefits in reductions of these pollutants
are not quantified in this SNOPR analysis, reductions of on-site
emissions provide health benefits to sensitive populations such as
children, elderly, and household members with respiratory
conditions.\89\ These subgroups are likely to experience more acutely
health effects that are caused or exacerbated by the on-site emissions.
DOE acknowledges the potential heath impact of these emissions, but
notes the uncertainty in quantifying their impact in this emerging area
of study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ J. Logue, N., Klepeis N, A. Lobscheid A, B. Singer B,
``Pollutant exposures from natural gas cooking burners: a
simulation-based assessment for Southern California'' Environ Health
Perspect, 2014, Vol 122, pp. 43-50.
\88\ Eric D. Lebel et. al ``Composition, Emissions, and Air
Quality Impacts of Hazardous Air Pollutants in Unburned Natural Gas
from Residential Stoves in California'', Environmental Science &
Technology, October 2022.
\89\ Seals, D and Krasner A, ``Health Effects from Gas Stove
Pollution'', Rocky Mountain Institute. 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that the current energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking products established in the April 2009
Final Rule prohibit constant burning pilots for all gas cooking
products (i.e., gas cooking
[[Page 6864]]
products both with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured
on and after April 9, 2012. 10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)-(2). In this SNOPR, DOE
analyzed a design option and corresponding efficiency levels for gas
cooking tops, optimized burner/improved grates, that are associated
with improvements in combustion characteristics. In general, higher
efficiency burner systems correlate with more complete combustion and
thus more efficient conversion of the energy content in the gas to
thermal energy.
DOE seeks comment on any health impacts to consumers, environmental
impacts, or general public health and welfare impacts (including the
distribution of such impacts across sensitive populations) of its
proposals in this SNOPR on on-site emissions from gas cooking products
of methane, carbon dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, or
other hazardous air emissions. DOE also seeks comment on whether
manufacturers are instituting design approaches, control strategies, or
other measures to mitigate methane or other emissions from incomplete
combustion and leakage.
FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel
combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels,
and ``fugitive'' emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of
CH4 and CO2, are estimated based on the
methodology described in chapter 15 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical
units per MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. For power sector
emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by
sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the
energy savings calculated in the national impact analysis.
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects
the AEO, which incorporates the projected impacts of existing air
quality regulations on emissions. AEO2022 generally represents current
legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government
actions, that were in place at the time of preparation of AEO2022,
including the emissions control programs discussed in the following
paragraphs.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ For further information, see the Assumptions to AEO2022
report that sets forth the major assumptions used to generate the
projections in the Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed June 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units
(``EGUs'') are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-
trade programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions
cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and
the District of Columbia (``DC''). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.)
SO2 emissions from numerous States in the eastern half of
the United States are also limited under the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (``CSAPR''). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these
States to reduce certain emissions, including annual SO2
emissions, and went into effect as of January 1, 2015.\91\ AEO2022
incorporates implementation of CSAPR, including the update to the CSAPR
ozone season program emission budgets and target dates issued in 2016.
81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). Compliance with CSAPR is flexible among
EGUs and is enforced through the use of tradable emissions allowances.
Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2 emissions
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the
adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting
increases in SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ CSAPR requires states to address annual emissions of
SO2 and NOX, precursors to the formation of
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution, in order to
address the interstate transport of pollution with respect to the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (``NAAQS''). CSAPR also requires certain states to address
the ozone season (May-September) emissions of NOX, a
precursor to the formation of ozone pollution, in order to address
the interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 1997
ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). EPA subsequently issued a
supplemental rule that included an additional five states in the
CSAPR ozone season program. 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011)
(Supplemental Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, beginning in 2016, SO2 emissions began to fall
as a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (``MATS'') for
power plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final rule, EPA
established a standard for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid
gas hazardous air pollutants (``HAP''), and also established a standard
for SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative equivalent
surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same controls are used to
reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2 emissions are
being reduced as a result of the control technologies installed on
coal-fired power plants to comply with the MATS requirements for acid
gas. In order to continue operating, coal power plants must have either
flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems installed.
Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas emissions, also
reduce SO2 emissions. Because of the emissions reductions
under the MATS, it is unlikely that excess SO2 emissions
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand would be needed
or used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by
another regulated EGU. Therefore, energy conservation standards that
decrease electricity generation would generally reduce SO2
emissions. DOE estimated SO2 emissions reduction using
emissions factors based on AEO2022.
CSAPR also established limits on NOX emissions for
numerous States in the eastern half of the United States. Energy
conservation standards would have little effect on NOX
emissions in those States covered by CSAPR emissions limits if excess
NOX emissions allowances resulting from the lower
electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases in
NOX emissions from other EGUs. In such case, NOX
emissions would remain near the limit even if electricity generation
goes down. A different case could possibly result, depending on the
configuration of the power sector in the different regions and the need
for allowances, such that NOX emissions might not remain at
the limit in the case of lower electricity demand. In this case, energy
conservation standards might reduce NOX emissions in covered
States. Despite this possibility, DOE has chosen to be conservative in
its analysis and has maintained the assumption that standards will not
reduce NOX emissions in States covered by CSAPR. Energy
conservation standards would be expected to reduce NOX
emissions in the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE used AEO2022 data to
derive NOX emissions factors for the group of States not
covered by CSAPR.
The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation
standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE
estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on
AEO2022, which incorporates the MATS.
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
As part of the development of this proposed rule, for the purpose
of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, DOE
considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions
of CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX, and
SO2 that are expected to result from each of the TSLs
considered. In order to make this calculation analogous to the
calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced
emissions expected to
[[Page 6865]]
result over the lifetime of products shipped in the projection period
for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis for the values used for
monetizing the emissions benefits and presents the values considered in
this SNOPR.
On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-
30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of
the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in
effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the
preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from
``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were
issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has
reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized
benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. However, DOE
notes it would reach the same conclusion presented in this proposed
rulemaking that the proposed standards are economically justified no
matter what value is ascribed to climate benefits. DOE requests comment
on how to address the climate benefits and other non-monetized effects
of the proposal.
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions
of CO2, CH4, and N2O by using a
measure of the social cost (``SC'') of each pollutant (e.g., SC-
CO2). These estimates represent the monetary value of the
net harm to society associated with a marginal increase in emissions of
these pollutants in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that
increase. These estimates are intended to include (but are not limited
to) climate-change-related changes in net agricultural productivity,
human health, property damages from increased flood risk, disruption of
energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the
value of ecosystem services.
DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate
benefits as recommended by applicable Executive orders and DOE would
reach the same conclusion presented in this proposed rulemaking in the
absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases. That is, the social
costs of greenhouse gases, whether measured using the February 2021
interim estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases or by another means, did not affect the
rule ultimately proposed by DOE.
DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO2,
CH4, and N2O reductions (i.e., SC-GHGs) using the
estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive
Order 13990, published in February 2021 by the IWG. The SC-GHGs is the
monetary value of the net harm to society associated with a marginal
increase in emissions in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that
increase. In principle, SC-GHGs includes the value of all climate
change impacts, including (but not limited to) changes in net
agricultural productivity, human health effects, property damage from
increased flood risk and natural disasters, disruption of energy
systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of
ecosystem services. The SC-GHGs therefore, reflects the societal value
of reducing emissions of the gas in question by one metric ton. The SC-
GHGs is the theoretically appropriate value to use in conducting
benefit-cost analyses of policies that affect CO2,
N2O and CH4 emissions. As a member of the IWG
involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees
that the interim SC-GHG estimates represent the most appropriate
estimate of the SC-GHG until revised estimates have been developed
reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed science.
The SC-GHGs estimates presented here were developed over many
years, using a transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the
best science available at the time of that process, and with input from
the public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, that included the DOE and
other executive branch agencies and offices, was established to ensure
that agencies were using the best available science and to promote
consistency in the social cost of carbon (i.e., SC-CO2)
values used across agencies. The IWG published SC-CO2
estimates in 2010 that were developed from an ensemble of three widely
cited integrated assessment models (``IAMs'') that estimate global
climate damages using highly aggregated representations of climate
processes and the global economy combined into a single modeling
framework. The three IAMs were run using a common set of input
assumptions in each model for future population, economic, and
CO2 emissions growth, as well as equilibrium climate
sensitivity--a measure of the globally averaged temperature response to
increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These estimates
were updated in 2013 based on new versions of each IAM. In August 2016,
the IWG published estimates of the social cost of methane (i.e., SC-
CH4) and nitrous oxide (i.e., SC-N2O) using
methodologies that are consistent with the methodology underlying the
SC-CO2 estimates. The modeling approach that extends the IWG
SC-CO2 methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has undergone
multiple stages of peer review. The SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates were developed by Marten et al.\92\ and
underwent a standard double-blind peer review process prior to journal
publication. In 2015, as part of the response to public comments
received to a 2013 solicitation for comments on the SC-CO2
estimates, the IWG announced a National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine review of the SC-CO2 estimates to
offer advice on how to approach future updates to ensure that the
estimates continue to reflect the best available science and
methodologies. In January 2017, the National Academies released their
final report, ``Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the
Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide,'' and recommended specific criteria for
future updates to the SC-CO2 estimates, a modeling framework
to satisfy the specified criteria, and both near-term updates and
longer-term research needs pertaining to various components of the
estimation process (National Academies, 2017).\93\ Shortly thereafter,
in March 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13783, which
disbanded the IWG, withdrew the previous TSDs, and directed agencies to
ensure SC-CO2 estimates used in regulatory analyses are
consistent with the guidance contained in OMB's Circular A-4,
``including with respect to the consideration of domestic versus
international impacts and the consideration of appropriate discount
rates'' (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). Benefit-cost analyses following
E.O. 13783 used SC-GHG estimates that attempted to focus on the U.S.-
specific
[[Page 6866]]
share of climate change damages as estimated by the models and were
calculated using two discount rates recommended by Circular A-4, 3
percent and 7 percent. All other methodological decisions and model
versions used in SC-GHG calculations remained the same as those used by
the IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. Newbold,
and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and N2O
mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SC-
CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 2015. 15(2): pp. 272-298.
\93\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of
Carbon Dioxide. 2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990,
which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S.
Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other
greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the
recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked
with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in Federal
analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the E.O.
that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking
global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in
February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this
proposed rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller
update of the SC-GHG estimates by January 2022 that takes into
consideration the advice of the National Academies (2017) and other
recent scientific literature. The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a
complete discussion of the IWG's initial review conducted under E.O.
13990. In particular, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used
under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact of GHG emissions in
multiple ways.
First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O.
13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the
welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better
reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of omitted effects
from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens,
assets, and investments located abroad, supply chains, U.S. military
assets and interests abroad, and tourism, and spillover pathways such
as economic and political destabilization and global migration that can
lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and
humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG
mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may
affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international
mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and
residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and
residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have
emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global
damages of GHG emissions. If the United States does not consider
impacts on other countries, it is difficult to convince other countries
to consider the impacts of their emissions on the United States. The
only way to achieve an efficient allocation of resources for emissions
reduction on a global basis--and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens--
is for all countries to base their policies on global estimates of
damages. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and,
therefore, in this proposed rule DOE centers attention on a global
measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as that taken in DOE
regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A robust estimate of
climate damages that accrue only to U.S. citizens and residents does
not currently exist in the literature. As explained in the February
2021 TSD, existing estimates are both incomplete and an underestimate
of total damages that accrue to the citizens and residents of the U.S.
because they do not fully capture the regional interactions and
spillovers discussed above, nor do they include all of the important
physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized
in the climate change literature. As noted in the February 2021 SC-GHG
TSD, the IWG will continue to review developments in the literature,
including more robust methodologies for estimating a U.S.-specific SC-
GHG value, and explore ways to better inform the public of the full
range of carbon impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE will continue to
follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue.
Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on
capital (7 percent under current OMB Circular A-4 guidance) to discount
the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately
underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of
estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National
Academies (2017) and the economic literature, the IWG continued to
conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically
appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context,\94\ and
recommended that discount rate uncertainty and relevant aspects of
intergenerational ethical considerations be accounted for in selecting
future discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Social
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order
12866. 2010. United States Government. (Last accessed April 15,
2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf; Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Carbon. Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013. (Last accessed
April 15, 2022.) www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technical-update-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact; Interagency Working Group on
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Technical
Support Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under Executive Order 12866. August 2016.
(Last accessed January 18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf; Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government.
Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application
of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the
Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. (Last accessed January
18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG
are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of
OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the
consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this
assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature
pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes that while OMB Circular A-4,
as published in 2003, recommends using 3- and 7-percent discount rates
as ``default'' values, Circular A-4 also reminds agencies that
``different regulations may call for different emphases in the
analysis, depending on the nature and complexity of the regulatory
issues and the sensitivity of the benefit and cost estimates to the key
assumptions.'' On discounting, Circular A-4 recognizes that ``special
ethical considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across
generations,'' and Circular A-4 acknowledges that analyses may
appropriately ``discount future costs and consumption benefits [. . .]
at a lower rate than for intragenerational analysis.'' In the 2015
Response to Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG members recognized that
``Circular A-4 is a living document'' and ``the use of 7 percent is not
considered appropriate for intergenerational discounting. There is wide
support for this view in the academic literature, and it is recognized
in Circular A-4 itself.'' Thus, DOE concludes that a 7 percent discount
rate is not appropriate to apply to value the social cost of greenhouse
gases in the analysis presented in this analysis.
To calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits,
[[Page 6867]]
DOE uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value
of damages from future GHG emissions, for internal consistency. That
approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February
2021 TSD recommends ``to ensure internal consistency--i.e., future
damages from climate change using the SC-GHG at 2.5 percent should be
discounted to the base year of the analysis using the same 2.5 percent
rate.'' DOE has also consulted the National Academies' 2017
recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates can ``be combined in RIAs
[regulatory impact analyses] with other cost and benefits estimates
that may use different discount rates.'' The National Academies
reviewed ``several options,'' including ``presenting all discount rate
combinations of other costs and benefits with [SC-GHG] estimates.''
As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February
2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and will continue to
follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. While
the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer
reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it set
the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by the
IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely on
the same models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a range
of discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the
IWG has recommended that agencies revert to the same set of four values
drawn from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount rates as
were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and subject to
public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the
distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios
(applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values
recommended for use in benefit-cost analyses: an average value
resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5
percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, selected as
the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3 percent discount rate.
The fourth value was included to provide information on potentially
higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change. As explained
in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and DOE agrees, this update reflects
the immediate need to have an operational SC-GHG for use in regulatory
benefit-cost analyses and other applications that was developed using a
transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and the science
available at the time of that process. Those estimates were subject to
public comment in the context of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well
as in a dedicated public comment period in 2013.
There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with
the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic
understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate
change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or
lower.\95\ Second, the IAMs used to produce these interim estimates do
not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic
impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature
and the science underlying their ``damage functions''--i.e., the core
parts of the IAMs that map global mean temperature changes and other
physical impacts of climate change into economic (both market and
nonmarket) damages--lags behind the most recent research. For example,
limitations include the incomplete treatment of catastrophic and non-
catastrophic impacts in the integrated assessment models, their
incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, the
incomplete way in which inter-regional and intersectoral linkages are
modeled, uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high
temperatures, and inadequate representation of the relationship between
the discount rate and uncertainty in economic growth over long time
horizons. Likewise, the socioeconomic and emissions scenarios used as
inputs to the models do not reflect new information from the last
decade of scenario generation or the full range of projections. The
modeling limitations do not all work in the same direction in terms of
their influence on the SC-CO2 estimates. However, as
discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the IWG has recommended that, taken
together, the limitations suggest that the interim SC-GHG estimates
used in this SNOPR likely underestimate the damages from GHG emissions.
DOE concurs with this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive
Order 13990. February. United States Government. Available at:
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climate-pollution/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's derivations of the SC-GHG values (i.e., SC-CO2,
SC-N2O, and SC-CH4) used for this SNOPR are
discussed in the following sections, and the results of DOE's analyses
estimating the benefits of the reductions in emissions of these GHGs
are presented in section V.B.6 of this document.
a. Social Cost of Carbon
The SC-CO2 values used for this SNOPR were based on the
values presented for the IWG's February 2021 TSD. Table IV.34 shows the
updated sets of SC-CO2 estimates from the IWG's February
2021 TSD in 5-year increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual
values that DOE used is presented in appendix 14A of the TSD for this
SNOPR. For purposes of capturing the uncertainties involved in
regulatory impact analysis, DOE has determined it is appropriate
include all four sets of SC-CO2 values, as recommended by
the IWG.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses how the
understanding of discounting approaches suggests that discount rates
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate
change may be lower than 3 percent.
Table IV.34--Annual SC-CO2 Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
[2020$ per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 3% (95th
5% (average) 3% (average) 2.5% (average) percentile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020........................................ 14 51 76 152
2025........................................ 17 56 83 169
2030........................................ 19 62 89 187
2035........................................ 22 67 96 206
2040........................................ 25 73 103 225
[[Page 6868]]
2045........................................ 28 79 110 242
2050........................................ 32 85 116 260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC-CO2 estimates published by
EPA, adjusted to 2020$.\97\ These estimates are based on methods,
assumptions, and parameters identical to the 2020-2050 estimates
published by the IWG. DOE expects additional climate benefits to accrue
for any longer-life consumer conventional cooking products after 2070,
but a lack of available SC-CO2 estimates for emissions years
beyond 2070 prevents DOE from monetizing these potential benefits in
this analysis. DOE notes that the SC-CO2 monetization
results presented in this SNOPR are a conservative estimate and that
the inclusion of emissions after 2070 would slightly increase estimated
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty
Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis,
Washington, DC, December 2021. Available at: www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-12/420r21028.pdf (last accessed January 13,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for
each year by the SC-CO2 value for that year in each of the
four cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2021$ using the implicit price
deflator for gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of
Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of the stream of
monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases
using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-
CO2 values in each case.
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values used for this
SNOPR were based on the values developed for the February 2021 TSD.
Table IV.35 shows the updated sets of SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-year
increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values used is
presented in appendix 14A of the TSD for this SNOPR. To capture the
uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has
determined it is appropriate to include all four sets of SC-
CH4 and SC-N2O values, as recommended by the IWG.
DOE derived values after 2050 using the approach described above for
the SC-CO2.
Table IV.35--Annual SC-CH4 and SC-N2O Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
[2020$ per metric ton]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC-CH4 SC-N2O
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic Discount rate and statistic
Year ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% 3% 2.5% 3% (95th 5% 3% 2.5% 3% (95th
(average) (average) (average) percentile) (average) (average) (average) percentile)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.............................. 670 1500 2000 3900 5800 18000 27000 48000
2025.............................. 800 1700 2200 4500 6800 21000 30000 54000
2030.............................. 940 2000 2500 5200 7800 23000 33000 60000
2035.............................. 1100 2200 2800 6000 9000 25000 36000 67000
2040.............................. 1300 2500 3100 6700 10000 28000 39000 74000
2045.............................. 1500 2800 3500 7500 12000 30000 42000 81000
2050.............................. 1700 3100 3800 8200 13000 33000 45000 88000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O emissions
reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates for that year in each of the cases. DOE
adjusted the values to 2021$ using the implicit price deflator for GDP
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of
the stream of monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the
cases using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the
SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates in each case.
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
For the SNOPR, DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX
and SO2 emissions reductions from electricity generation
using the latest benefit per ton estimates for that sector from the
EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program.\98\ DOE used EPA's values
for PM2.5-related benefits associated with NOX
and SO2 and for ozone-related benefits associated with
NOX for 2025, 2030, and 2040, calculated with discount rates
of 3 percent and 7 percent. DOE used linear interpolation to define
values for the years not given in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years
beyond 2040 the values are held constant. DOE derived values specific
to the sector for consumer conventional cooking products using a method
described in appendix 14B of the TSD for this SNOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors
from 21 Sectors. Available at www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also estimated the monetized value of NOX and
SO2 emissions reductions from site use of natural gas in
consumer conventional cooking products using benefit-per-ton estimates
from the EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program. Although none of
the sectors covered by EPA refers
[[Page 6869]]
specifically to residential and commercial buildings, the sector called
``area sources'' would be a reasonable proxy for residential and
commercial buildings.\99\ The EPA document provides high and low
estimates for 2025 and 2030 at 3- and 7-percent discount rates.\100\
DOE used the same linear interpolation and extrapolation as it did with
the values for electricity generation. DOE notes that in-home emissions
may carry different monetized health risks than the risks assumed in
the monetized health benefits calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ ``Area sources'' represents all emission sources for which
states do not have exact (point) locations in their emissions
inventories. Because exact locations would tend to be associated
with larger sources, ``area sources'' would be fairly representative
of small dispersed sources like homes and businesses.
\100\ ``Area sources'' are a category in the 2018 document from
EPA, but are not used in the 2021 document cited above. See:
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-02/documents/sourceapportionmentbpttsd_2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE multiplied the site emissions reduction (in tons) in each year
by the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series using
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as appropriate. DOE will
continue to evaluate the monetization of avoided NOX
emissions and will make any appropriate updates for the final rule.
Additional details on the monetization of NOX and
SO2 emissions reductions are included in chapter 14 of the
TSD for this SNOPR.
M. Utility Impact Analysis
The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the
electric power generation industry that would result from the adoption
of new or amended energy conservation standards. The utility impact
analysis estimates the changes in installed electrical capacity and
generation that would result for each TSL. The analysis is based on
published output from the NEMS associated with AEO2022. NEMS produces
the AEO Reference case, as well as a number of side cases that estimate
the economy-wide impacts of changes to energy supply and demand. For
the current analysis, impacts are quantified by comparing the levels of
electricity sector generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption and
emissions in the AEO2022 Reference case and various side cases. Details
of the methodology are provided in the appendices to chapters 13 and 15
of the TSD for this SNOPR.
The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients
that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel
consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a
unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are
multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA
to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or
amended energy conservation standards.
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, the Joint Gas Associations
commented that DOE should conduct a similar analysis on natural gas
utilities as it conducted on electric utilities to assess the impact of
the proposed efficiency requirements on that segment of the energy
industry. (Joint Gas Associations, No. 68 at pp. 3-4) The Joint Gas
Associations added that a shift from natural gas cooking products to
electric cooking products would impact the electric grid requirements.
(Id.)
DOE notes that the utility impact analysis as applied to electric
utilities only estimates the change to capacity and generation as a
result of a standard, as modeled in NEMS, and there is no gas utility
analog. DOE further notes that the impact to natural gas utility sales
is equivalent to the natural gas saved by the proposed standard and
includes those results in chapter 15 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
N. Employment Impact Analysis
DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one
factor in selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts from new or
amended energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect
impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of
employees of manufacturers of the products subject to standards, their
suppliers, and related service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts.
Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that
occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by
the purchase and operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect
employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or
eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing
sector being regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on
energy, (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility
industry, (3) increased consumer spending on the products to which the
new standards apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects
of those three factors throughout the economy.
One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of
Labor Statistics (``BLS''). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of
the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in
different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere
in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate
that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs
(both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of
the economy.\101\ There are many reasons for these differences,
including wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more
capital-intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a
less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-
intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, the BLS
data suggest that net national employment may increase due to shifts in
economic activity resulting from energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ See U.S. Department of Commerce--Bureau of Economic
Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional
Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). 1997. U.S. Government
Printing Office: Washington, DC. Available at apps.bea.gov/scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf (last accessed July 11, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard
levels considered in this SNOPR using an input/output model of the U.S.
economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4
(``ImSET'').\102\ ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S.
Benchmark National Input-Output'' (``I-O'') model, which was designed
to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving
technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model
having structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among
187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential
building energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and R.W.
Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model
Description and User Guide. 2015. Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory: Richland, WA. PNNL-24563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting
model, and that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment
impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because
ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects
predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts
[[Page 6870]]
over the long run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to
generate results for near-term timeframes (2027), where these
uncertainties are reduced. For more details on the employment impact
analysis, see chapter 16 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking products. It addresses the TSLs examined
by DOE, the projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products, and the standards levels that DOE is proposing to adopt in
this SNOPR. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained
in the TSD for this SNOPR supporting this document.
A. Trial Standard Levels
In general, DOE typically evaluates potential new or amended
standards for products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency
levels for each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and
consider manufacturer cost interactions between the product classes, to
the extent that there are such interactions, and market cross
elasticity from consumer purchasing decisions that may change when
different standard levels are set.
In the analysis conducted for this SNOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits
and burdens of three TSLs for consumer conventional cooking products.
DOE developed TSLs that combine efficiency levels for each analyzed
product class. DOE presents the results for the TSLs in this document,
while the results for all efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in
the TSD for this SNOPR.
Table V.1 through Table V.3 present the TSLs and the corresponding
efficiency levels that DOE has identified for potential amended energy
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products. TSL
3 represents the maximum technologically feasible (max-tech) energy
efficiency for all product classes. TSL 2 represents an intermediate
TSL. TSL 1 is configured with the minimum efficiency improvement in
each product class corresponding to electronic controls for electric
cooking tops, optimized burners for gas cooking tops, and switch mode
power supplies for ovens.
Table V.1--Trial Standard Levels for Cooking Top Market
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric open (coil) element cooking tops Electric smooth element Gas cooking tops
---------------------------------------------- cooking tops -------------------------------
Trial standard level --------------------------------
EL IAEC (kWh/ IAEC (kWh/ EL IAEC (kBtu/
year) EL year) year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... Baseline.................... 199 1 207 1 1,440
2......................................... Baseline.................... 199 1 207 2 1,204
3......................................... Baseline.................... 199 3 179 2 1,204
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.2--Trial Standard Levels for Conventional Electric Oven
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard electric ovens Self-clean electric ovens
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freestanding Built-in/slide-in Freestanding Built-in/slide-in
Trial standard level -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEAO (kWh/ IEAO (kWh/ IEAO (kWh/ IEAO (kWh/
EL year) EL year) EL year) EL year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... 1 302.0 1 308.9 1 341.7 1 348.1
2............................................................... 1 302.0 1 308.9 1 341.7 1 348.1
3............................................................... 3 235.3 3 242.1 3 275.0 3 281.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.3--Trial Standard Levels for Conventional Gas Oven
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard gas ovens Self-clean gas ovens
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freestanding Built-in/slide-in Freestanding Built-in/slide-in
Trial standard level -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IEAO (kBtu/ IEAO (kBtu/ IEAO (kBtu/ IEAO (kBtu/
EL year) EL year) EL year) EL year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... 1 2,041 1 2,062 1 1,915 1 1,937
2............................................................... 1 2,041 1 2,062 1 1,915 1 1,937
3............................................................... 2 1,908 2 1,929 2 1,781 2 1,804
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE constructed the TSLs for this SNOPR to include ELs
representative of ELs with similar characteristics (i.e., using similar
technologies and/or efficiencies, and having roughly comparable
equipment availability). The use of representative ELs provided for
greater distinction between the TSLs. While representative ELs were
included in the TSLs, DOE considered all efficiency levels as part of
its analysis.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this SNOPR are
discussed in section IV.C of this document. Results by efficiency
level are presented in chapters 8, 10, and 12 of the TSD for this
SNOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
DOE analyzed the economic impacts on consumer conventional cooking
products consumers by looking at the effects that potential new and
amended standards at each TSL would have on
[[Page 6871]]
the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards
on selected consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed in the
following sections.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two
ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the TSD for
this SNOPR provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
Table V.4 through Table V.25 show the LCC and PBP results for the
TSLs considered for each product class. In the first of each pair of
tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline
product. In the second table, impacts are measured relative to the
efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in the compliance
year (see section IV.F.8 of this document). Because some consumers
purchase products with higher efficiency in the no-new-standards case,
the average savings are less than the difference between the average
LCC of the baseline product and the average LCC at each TSL. The
savings refer only to consumers who are affected by a standard at a
given TSL. Those who already purchase a product with efficiency at or
above a given TSL are not affected. Consumers for whom the LCC
increases at a given TSL experience a net cost.
Table V.4--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------
First Simple Average
TSL Efficiency level Installed year's Lifetime payback lifetime
cost operating operating LCC (years) (years)
cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-3....................................... Baseline...................... $327 $14 $334 $661 ........... 16.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level.
Table V.5--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking
Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
---------------------------------------------------------
TSL Efficiency level Average LCC savings * Percent of consumers that
(2021$) experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-3.............................. Baseline........... $0.00 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V.6--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------
First Simple Average
TSL Efficiency level Installed year's Lifetime payback lifetime
cost operating operating LCC (years) (years)
cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... $552 $20 $408 $960 ........... 16.8
1, 2...................................... 1............................. 555 14 336 891 0.6 16.8
2............................. 568 13 321 890 2.5 16.8
3......................................... 3............................. 1,204 12 314 1,517 87.5 16.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline product.
Table V.7--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency -------------------------------------------------------
TSL level Average LCC savings * Percent of consumers that
(2021$) experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2.................................... 1 $13.29 0
3....................................... 3 (580.31) 95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
[[Page 6872]]
Table V.8--Average LCC and PBP Results for Gas Cooking Tops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------
First Simple Average
TSL Efficiency level Installed year's Lifetime payback lifetime
cost operating operating LCC (years) (years)
cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... $376 $16 $337 $713 ........... 14.5
1......................................... 1............................. 395 13 310 705 8.4 14.5
2, 3...................................... 2............................. 395 12 292 686 5.0 14.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline product.
Table V.9--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Gas Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency -------------------------------------------------------
TSL level Average LCC savings * Percent of consumers that
(2021$) experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 1 $3.88 27
2, 3.................................... 2 21.89 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V.10--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------
First Simple Average
TSL Efficiency level Installed year's Lifetime payback lifetime
cost operating operating LCC (years) (years)
cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... $652 $23 $482 $1,134 ........... 16.8
1, 2...................................... 1............................. 655 21 459 1,114 1.7 16.8
2............................. 704 20 448 1,152 19.8 16.8
3......................................... 3............................. 755 17 405 1,160 17.0 16.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline product.
Table V.11--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency -------------------------------------------------------
TSL level Average LCC savings * Percent of consumers that
(2021$) experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2.................................... 1 $0.99 0
3....................................... 3 (29.92) 80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
Table V.12--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------
First Simple Average
TSL Efficiency level Installed year's Lifetime payback lifetime
cost operating operating LCC (years) (years)
cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... $682 $24 $494 $1,176 ........... 16.8
1, 2...................................... 1............................. 685 22 472 1,157 1.8 16.8
2............................. 734 21 461 1,195 20.2 16.8
3......................................... 3............................. 785 18 417 1,203 17.2 16.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline product.
[[Page 6873]]
Table V.13--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/
Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency -------------------------------------------------------
TSL level Average LCC savings * Percent of consumers that
(2021$) experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2.................................... 1 $0.95 0
3....................................... 3 (33.05) 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
Table V.14--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------
First Simple Average
TSL Efficiency level Installed year's Lifetime payback lifetime
cost operating operating LCC (years) (years)
cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... $699 $28 $552 $1,251 ........... 16.8
1, 2...................................... 1............................. 702 26 529 1,231 1.7 16.8
2............................. 751 26 518 1,269 19.8 16.8
3......................................... 3............................. 802 22 474 1,277 17.0 16.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline product.
Table V.15--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Electric Self-Clean Ovens,
Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency -------------------------------------------------------
TSL level Average LCC savings * Percent of consumers that
(2021$) experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2.................................... 1 $1.02 0
3....................................... 3 (15.31) 75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
Table V.16--Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------
First Simple Average
TSL Efficiency level Installed year's Lifetime payback lifetime
cost operating operating LCC (years) (years)
cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... $729 $29 $563 $1,292 ........... 16.8
1, 2...................................... 1............................. 732 27 540 1,273 1.8 16.8
2............................. 781 27 530 1,311 20.1 16.8
3......................................... 3............................. 832 23 486 1,319 17.2 16.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline product.
Table V.17--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/
Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency -------------------------------------------------------
TSL level Average LCC savings * Percent of consumers that
(2021$) experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2.................................... 1 $1.01 0
3....................................... 3 (10.84) 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
[[Page 6874]]
Table V.18--Average LCC and PBP Results for Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------
First Simple Average
TSL Efficiency level Installed year's Lifetime payback lifetime
cost operating operating LCC (years) (years)
cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... $677 $43 $684 $1,361 ........... 14.5
1, 2...................................... 1............................. 681 41 664 1,345 1.9 14.5
3......................................... 2............................. 715 40 653 1,367 14.1 14.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline product.
Table V.19--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency -------------------------------------------------------
TSL level Average LCC savings * Percent of consumers that
(2021$) experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2.................................... 1 $0.65 1
3....................................... 2 (7.56) 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
Table V.20--Average LCC and PBP Results for Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------- Simple Average
TSL Efficiency level Lifetime payback lifetime
Installed First year's operating LCC (years) (years)
cost operating cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................... $707 $44 $692 $1,399 ........... 14.5
1, 2..................................... 1........................... 710 42 673 1,384 2.0 14.5
3........................................ 2........................... 744 41 662 1,406 14.4 14.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline product.
Table V.21--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency -------------------------------------------------------
TSL level Average LCC savings * Percent of consumers that
(2021$) experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2.................................... 1 $0.59 1
3....................................... 2 (13.37) 56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
Table V.22--Average LCC and PBP Results for Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------- Simple Average
TSL Efficiency level Lifetime payback lifetime
Installed First year's operating LCC (years) (years)
cost operating cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................... $847 $44 $702 $1,549 ........... 14.5
1, 2..................................... 1........................... 850 43 683 1,532 1.9 14.5
3........................................ 2........................... 884 42 671 1,555 14.1 14.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline product.
[[Page 6875]]
Table V.23--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency -------------------------------------------------------
TSL level Average LCC savings * Percent of consumers that
(2021$) experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2.................................... 1 $0.70 1
3....................................... 2 (0.86) 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
Table V.24--Average LCC and PBP Results for Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Simple Average
TSL Lifetime LCC payback lifetime
Efficiency level Installed First year's operating (years) (years)
cost operating cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................... $876 $45 $711 $1,587 ........... 14.5
1, 2..................................... 1........................... 879 44 692 1,571 2.0 14.5
3........................................ 2........................... 913 43 680 1,594 14.4 14.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline product.
Table V.25--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-
In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency -------------------------------------------------------
TSL level Average LCC savings * Percent of consumers that
(2021$) experience net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2.................................... 1 $0.60 1
3....................................... 2 (4.52) 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the
considered TSLs on low-income households and senior-only households.
Table V.26 through Table V.36 compare the average LCC savings and PBP
at each efficiency level for the consumer subgroups with similar
metrics for the entire consumer sample for each product class. In most
cases, the average LCC savings and PBP for low-income households and
senior-only households at the considered efficiency levels are not
substantially different from the average for all households. Usage data
from RECS 2015 indicate that low-income households have a similar usage
pattern to all households which leads to similar results. Senior-only
households were found to use cooking products less frequently than the
general population resulting in slightly lower savings. Chapter 11 of
the TSD for this SNOPR presents the complete LCC and PBP results for
the subgroups.
Table V.26--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Electric Open (Coil)
Element Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$) *
TSL 1-3..................................................... $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1-3..................................................... .............. .............. ..............
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1-3..................................................... 0% 0% 0%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1-3..................................................... 0% 0% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
[[Page 6876]]
Table V.27--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Electric Smooth Element
Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... $13.71 $13.30 $13.29
TSL 3....................................................... ($556.90) ($580.13) ($580.31)
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 0.5 0.6 0.6
TSL 3....................................................... 82.4 86.6 87.5
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 20% 19% 19%
TSL 3....................................................... 1% 0% 0%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 0% 0% 0%
TSL 3....................................................... 94% 95% 95%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
Table V.28--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Gas Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1....................................................... $3.56 $3.65 $3.88
TSL 2, 3.................................................... $21.06 $21.37 $21.89
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1....................................................... 8.5 8.6 8.4
TSL 2, 3.................................................... 5.0 5.0 5.0
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1....................................................... 21% 19% 21%
TSL 2, 3.................................................... 76% 76% 75%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1....................................................... 28% 29% 27%
TSL 2, 3.................................................... 18% 19% 18%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V.29--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Electric Standard
Ovens, Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... $1.00 $0.95 $0.99
TSL 3....................................................... ($29.95) ($40.40) ($29.92)
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 1.7 1.8 1.7
TSL 3....................................................... 17.1 20.4 17.0
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 5% 5% 5%
TSL 3....................................................... 21% 14% 21%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 0% 0% 0%
TSL 3....................................................... 79% 86% 80%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
Table V.30--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Electric Standard
Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... $0.95 $0.86 $0.95
TSL 3....................................................... ($32.96) ($43.69) ($33.05)
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 1.8 1.9 1.8
TSL 3....................................................... 17.3 20.6 17.2
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
[[Page 6877]]
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 5% 5% 5%
TSL 3....................................................... 20% 13% 20%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 0% 0% 0%
TSL 3....................................................... 80% 87% 81%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
Table V.31--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Electric Self-Clean
Ovens, Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... $1.07 $0.99 $1.02
TSL 3....................................................... ($15.42) ($24.72) ($15.31)
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 1.7 1.8 1.7
TSL 3....................................................... 17.1 20.4 17.0
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 5% 5% 5%
TSL 3....................................................... 25% 18% 25%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 0% 0% 0%
TSL 3....................................................... 75% 82% 75%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
Table V.32--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Electric Self-Clean
Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... $0.96 $0.90 $1.01
TSL 3....................................................... ($10.89) ($20.02) ($10.84)
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 1.8 1.9 1.8
TSL 3....................................................... 17.3 20.6 17.2
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 5% 5% 5%
TSL 3....................................................... 26% 19% 26%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 0% 0% 0%
TSL 3....................................................... 72% 79% 72%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
Table V.33--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Gas Standard Ovens,
Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... $0.72 $0.56 $0.65
TSL 3....................................................... ($6.77) ($8.51) ($7.56)
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 1.7 2.1 1.9
TSL 3....................................................... 12.0 15.7 14.1
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 3% 3% 3%
TSL 3....................................................... 4% 3% 4%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 1% 1% 1%
TSL 3....................................................... 34% 34% 33%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
[[Page 6878]]
Table V.34--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Gas Standard Ovens,
Built-In/Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... $0.74 $0.58 $0.59
TSL 3....................................................... ($11.63) ($14.33) ($13.37)
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 1.7 2.2 2.0
TSL 3....................................................... 12.3 16.0 14.4
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 4% 3% 3%
TSL 3....................................................... 6% 5% 6%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 1% 1% 1%
TSL 3....................................................... 56% 57% 56%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
Table V.35--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Gas Self-Clean Ovens,
Freestanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... $0.90 $0.64 $0.70
TSL 3....................................................... ($0.60) ($1.12) ($0.86)
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 1.7 2.1 1.9
TSL 3....................................................... 12.1 15.7 14.1
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 4% 4% 4%
TSL 3....................................................... 2% 1% 1%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 0% 1% 1%
TSL 3....................................................... 5% 6% 6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
Table V.36--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Gas Self-Clean Ovens,
Built-In/Slide-In
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... $0.67 $0.50 $0.60
TSL 3....................................................... ($3.58) ($4.92) ($4.52)
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 1.7 2.2 2.0
TSL 3....................................................... 12.3 16.0 14.4
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 3% 3% 3%
TSL 3....................................................... 3% 2% 3%
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1, 2.................................................... 1% 1% 1%
TSL 3....................................................... 20% 21% 20%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values denoted in parentheses.
In the absence to data specific to each consumer subgroup, DOE
assumed the efficiency distribution developed for the reference case
analysis (see section IV.F.8 of this document for details). However,
for gas cooking tops, this likely overestimates the negative impact to
low-income households that are more likely to purchase traditional
residential-style gas cooking tops which tend to have fewer high output
burners and slimmer grates relative to commercial-style gas cooking
tops. These households are more likely to purchase products above the
baseline at EL 1 or EL 2. As both EL 1 and EL 2 have the same installed
cost (see Table V.5), a standard for these consumers would not lead to
an increase in purchase price and would result in operating cost
savings for consumers that purchase EL 1 in the no-new-standards case
and EL 2 in a standards case.
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
As discussed in section III.F.2 of this document, EPCA establishes
a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is
economically
[[Page 6879]]
justified if the increased purchase cost for a product that meets the
standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy
savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable
presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs, DOE used
discrete values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use
calculation on the DOE test procedure for consumer conventional cooking
products. In contrast, the PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a of this
document were calculated using distributions that reflect the range of
energy use in the field.
Table V.37 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for
the considered TSLs for consumer conventional cooking products. While
DOE examined the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it considered
whether the standard levels considered for the SNOPR are economically
justified through a more detailed analysis of the economic impacts of
those levels, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers
the full range of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and
environment. The results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to
definitively evaluate the economic justification for a potential
standard level, thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any
preliminary determination of economic justification.
Table V.37--Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Product class -----------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops....................... n.a. n.a. n.a.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops............................ 0.5 0.5 66.0
Gas Cooking Tops................................................ 6.4 3.8 3.8
Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding........................... 1.8 1.8 9.4
Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In...................... 1.8 1.8 9.4
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding......................... 1.8 1.8 9.4
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.................... 1.8 1.8 9.4
Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding................................ 8.5 8.5 24.4
Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In........................... 8.9 8.9 24.7
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding.............................. 8.7 8.7 24.4
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In......................... 8.9 8.9 24.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The entry ``n.a.'' means not applicable because the evaluated standard is the baseline.
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of new and amended
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of consumer conventional
cooking products. The following section describes the expected impacts
on manufacturers at each considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the TSD for this
SNOPR explains the analysis in further detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which
examines changes in the industry that would result from the analyzed
energy conservation standards. The following tables summarize the
estimated financial impacts (represented by changes in INPV) of
potential new and amended energy conservation standards on
manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products, as well as the
conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products would incur at each TSL. To evaluate the
range of cash-flow impacts on the consumer conventional cooking product
industry, DOE modeled two scenarios using different assumptions that
correspond to the range of anticipated market responses to new and
amended energy conservation standards: (1) the preservation of gross
margin scenario and (2) the preservation of operating profit scenario.
In the preservation of gross margin scenario, consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers are able to maintain their margins (as a
percentage), even as the MPCs of consumer conventional cooking products
increase due to energy conservation standards. The same uniform margin
of 17 percent is applied across all efficiency levels in the
preservation of gross margin.\104\ In the preservation of operating
profit scenario, manufacturers are not able to maintain their original
margins of 17 percent, in the standards cases. Instead, manufacturers
are only able to maintain the same operating profit (in absolute
dollars) in the standards cases as in the no-new-standards case,
despite higher MPCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ The gross margin percentage of 17 percent is based on a
manufacturer markup of 1.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of the modeled scenarios results in a unique set of cash-flows
and corresponding industry values at each TSL for consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers. In the following discussion, the INPV
results refer to the difference in industry value between the no-new-
standards case and each standards case resulting from the sum of
discounted cash-flows from 2022 through 2056. To provide perspective on
the short-run cash-flow impact, DOE includes in the discussion of
results a comparison of free cash flow between the no-new-standards
case and the standards case at each TSL in the year before new and
amended standards are required.
DOE presents the range in INPV for consumer conventional cooking
product manufacturers in Table V.38 and Table V.39.
[[Page 6880]]
Table V.38--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products--Preservation of Gross
Margin Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level *
Units No-new- -----------------------------------------------
standards case 1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.......................... 2021$ millions.. 1,607 1,506 1,456 422
Change in INPV................ 2021$ millions.. .............. (100.7) (150.4) (1,185.1)
%............... .............. (6.3) (9.4) (73.8)
Product Conversion Costs...... 2021$ millions.. .............. 45.5 109.9 1,401.6
Capital Conversion Costs...... 2021$ millions.. .............. 58.5 73.5 444.8
Total Conversion Costs........ 2021$ millions.. .............. 104.1 183.4 1,846.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses indicate negative values. Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding.
Table V.39--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products--Preservation of Operating
Profit Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level *
Units No-new- -----------------------------------------------
standards case 1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.......................... 2021$ millions.. 1,607 1,502 1,452 238
Change in INPV................ 2021$ millions.. .............. (105.1) (154.8) (1,368.6)
%............... .............. (6.5) (9.6) (85.2)
Product Conversion Costs...... 2021$ millions.. .............. 45.5 109.9 1,401.6
Capital Conversion Costs...... 2021$ millions.. .............. 58.5 73.5 444.8
Total Conversion Costs........ 2021$ millions.. .............. 104.1 183.4 1,846.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses indicate negative values. Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding.
At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from -$105.1
million to -$100.7 million, which represents a change of -6.5 percent
to -6.3. percent, respectively. At TSL 1, industry free cash-flow
decrease to $90.3 million, which represents a decrease of approximately
42.5 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $132.9
million in 2026, the year before the estimated compliance date.
TSL 1 would set the energy conservation standard at baseline for
the electric open (coil) element cooking top product class and at EL 1
for all other product classes. DOE estimates that 100 percent of the
electric open (coil) element cooking top shipments, 80 percent of the
electric smooth element cooking top shipments, 52 percent of the gas
cooking top shipments, 95 percent of the electric oven shipments, and
96 percent of the gas oven shipments would already meet or exceed the
efficiency levels required at TSL 1 in 2027.
At TSL 1, DOE expects consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers to incur approximately $45.5 million in product
conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant cooking top models and
oven models, as well as to test all (both compliant and newly
redesigned) cooking top models to DOE's cooking top test procedure.
Additionally, consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers would
incur approximately $58.5 million in capital conversion costs to
purchase new tooling and equipment necessary to produce all electric
smooth element cooking top models and all oven models to use switch-
mode power supplies and to purchase new molds for grates and burners
for gas cooking top models that would not meet this energy conservation
standard.
At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted average MPC for consumer
conventional cooking products slightly increases by 0.5 percent
relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC in
2027. In the preservation of gross margin scenario, manufacturers can
fully pass on this slight cost increase. The slight increase in
shipment weighted average MPC is outweighed by the $104.1 million in
conversion costs, causing a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 1
under the preservation of gross margin scenario.
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers
earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-
new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit
from their investments or higher MPCs. In this scenario, the 0.5
percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a reduction
in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the
margin and the $104.1 million in conversion costs incurred by
manufacturers cause a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under
the preservation of operating profit scenario.
At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from -$154.8
million to -$150.4 million, which represents a change of -9.6 percent
to -9.4 percent, respectively. At TSL 2, industry free cash-flow
decrease to $60.7 million, which represents a decrease of approximately
72.2 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $132.9
million in 2026, the year before the estimated compliance date.
TSL 2 would set the energy conservation standard at baseline for
the electric open (coil) element cooking top product class; at EL 1 for
the electric smooth element cooking top and for all oven product
classes (electric and gas); and at EL 2 for the gas cooking top product
class, which represents max-tech for this product class. DOE estimates
that 100 percent of the electric open (coil) element cooking top
shipments, 80 percent of the electric smooth element cooking top
shipments, 4 percent of the gas cooking top shipments, 95 percent of
the electric oven shipments, and 96 percent of the gas oven shipments
would already meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 2 in
2027.
At TSL 2, DOE expects consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers to incur approximately $109.9 million in product
conversion costs at this TSL. This includes testing costs and product
redesign costs. The majority of the product conversion costs
[[Page 6881]]
are for gas cooking top manufacturers to redesign non-compliant gas
cooking top models to meet this energy conservation standard, as well
as to test all (both compliant and newly redesigned) cooking top models
to DOE's cooking top test procedure. Additionally, consumer
conventional cooking product manufacturers would incur approximately
$73.5 million in capital conversion costs to purchase new tooling and
equipment necessary to produce all electric smooth element cooking top
models and all oven models to use switch-mode power supplies and to
purchase new molds for grates and burners for gas cooking top models
that would not meet this energy conservation standard.
At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted average MPC for consumer
conventional cooking products slightly increases by 0.5 percent
relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC in
2027. In the preservation of gross margin scenario, manufacturers can
fully pass on this slight cost increase. The slight increase in
shipment weighted average MPC is outweighed by the $183.4 million in
conversion costs, causing a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 2
under the preservation of gross margin scenario.
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the 0.5
percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a reduction
in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the
manufacturer markup and the $183.4 million in conversion costs incurred
by manufacturers cause a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 2
under the preservation of operating profit scenario.
At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from -$1,368.6
million to -$1,185.1 million, which represents a change of -85.2
percent to -73.8 percent, respectively. At TSL 3, industry free cash-
flow decrease to -$666.2 million, which represents a decrease of
approximately 799.0 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case
value of $132.9 million in 2026, the year before the estimated
compliance date.
TSL 3 would set the energy conservation standard at baseline for
the electric open (coil) element cooking top product class; at EL 2 for
the gas cooking top product class and for all the gas oven product
classes (standard and self-clean); and at EL 3 for the electric smooth
element cooking top product class and for all the electric oven product
classes (standard and self-clean). This represents max-tech for all
product classes. DOE estimates that 100 percent of the electric open
(coil) element cooking top shipments, 5 percent of the electric smooth
element cooking top shipments, 4 percent of the gas cooking top
shipments, zero percent of the electric standard oven (freestanding and
built-in) shipments, zero percent of the electric self-clean oven
(freestanding) shipments, 2 percent of the electric self-clean (built-
in) shipments, 62 percent of gas standard oven (freestanding)
shipments, 38 percent of the gas standard oven (built-in) shipments, 93
percent of the gas self-clean oven (freestanding) shipments, and 77
percent of the gas self-clean (built-in) shipments would already meet
the efficiency levels required at TSL 3 in 2027.
At TSL 3, DOE expects consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers to incur approximately $1,401.6 million in product
conversion costs at this TSL. This includes testing costs and product
redesign costs. At this TSL electric smooth element cooking top
manufacturers would have to completely redesign most of their electric
smooth element cooking top models to use induction technology. Electric
oven manufacturers would have to completely redesign all of their
electric oven models to use oven separators. Additionally, consumer
conventional cooking product manufacturers would incur approximately
$444.8 million in capital conversion costs to purchase new tooling and
equipment necessary to produce the numerous redesigned cooking top and
oven models at this TSL.
At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted average MPC for consumer
conventional cooking products significantly increases by 17.7 percent
relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC in
2027. In the preservation of gross margin scenario, manufacturers can
fully pass on this cost increase. The significant increase in shipment
weighted average MPC is outweighed by the $1,846.4 million in
conversion costs, causing a significantly negative change in INPV at
TSL 3 under the preservation of gross margin scenario.
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the 17.7
percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a reduction
in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the
margin and the $1,846.4 million in conversion costs incurred by
manufacturers cause a significantly negative change in INPV at TSL 3
under the preservation of operating profit scenario.
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
To quantitatively assess the potential impacts of new and amended
energy conservation standards on direct employment in the consumer
conventional cooking products industry, DOE used the GRIM to estimate
the domestic labor expenditures and number of direct employees in the
no-new-standards case and in each of the standards cases (i.e., TSLs)
during the analysis period.
Production employees are those who are directly involved in
fabricating and assembling products within a manufacturer facility.
Workers performing services that are closely associated with production
operations, such as materials handling tasks using forklifts, are
included as production labor, as well as line supervisors.
DOE used the GRIM to calculate the number of production employees
from labor expenditures. DOE used statistical data from the U.S. Census
Bureau's 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers (``ASM'') and the results
of the engineering analysis to calculate industry-wide labor
expenditures. Labor expenditures related to product manufacturing
depend on the labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, and an
assumption that wages remain fixed in real terms over time. The total
labor expenditures in the GRIM were then converted to domestic
production employment levels by dividing production labor expenditures
by the annual payment per production worker.
Non-production employees account for those workers that are not
directly engaged in the manufacturing of the covered products. This
could include sales, human resources, engineering, and management. DOE
estimated non-production employment levels by multiplying the number of
consumer conventional cooking product workers by a scaling factor. The
scaling factor is calculated by taking the ratio of the total number of
employees, and the total production workers associated with the
industry NAICS code 335220, which covers consumer conventional cooking
product manufacturing.
The employment impacts shown in Table V.40 represent the potential
domestic production employment that could result following the new and
amended energy conservation standards. The upper bound of the results
estimates the maximum change in the number of production workers that
could occur after compliance with the new and amended energy
conservation standards when assuming that manufacturers continue to
produce
[[Page 6882]]
the same scope of covered products in the same production facilities.
It also assumes that domestic production does not shift to lower labor-
cost countries. Because there is a risk of manufacturers evaluating
sourcing decisions in response to the new and amended energy
conservation standards, the lower bound of the employment results
includes DOE's estimate of the total number of U.S. production workers
in the industry who could lose their jobs if some existing domestic
production were moved outside of the United States. While the results
present a range of domestic employment impacts following 2027, the
following sections also include qualitative discussions of the
likelihood of negative employment impacts at the various TSLs.
Using 2019 ASM data and interviews with manufacturers, DOE
estimates that approximately 60 percent of the consumer conventional
cooking products sold in the United States are manufactured
domestically. With this assumption, DOE estimates that in the absence
of new and amended energy conservation standards, there would be
approximately 4,322 domestic production workers involved in
manufacturing consumer conventional cooking products in 2027. Table
V.40 shows the range of the impacts of the new and amended energy
conservation standards on U.S. production workers in the consumer
conventional cooking product industry.
Table V.40--Domestic Employment for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products in 2027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-new- Trial standard level
standards -----------------------------------------------
case 1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Production Workers in 2027............. 4,322 4,343 4,343 4,880
Domestic Non-Production Workers in 2027......... 631 634 634 713
Total Direct Employment in 2027................. 4,953 4,977 4,977 5,593
Potential Changes in Total Direct Employment in .............. 0-21 0-21 (1,068)-558
2027 *.........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE presents a range of potential impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative values.
At the upper end of the range, all examined TSLs show an increase
in the number of domestic production workers for consumer conventional
cooking products. The upper end of the range represents a scenario
where manufacturers increase production hiring due to the increase in
the labor associated with adding the required components to make
consumer conventional cooking products more efficient. However, as
previously stated, this assumes that in addition to hiring more
production employees, all existing domestic production would remain in
the United States and not shift to lower labor-cost countries.
At the lower end of the range, all examined TSLs show either no
change in domestic production employment or a decrease in domestic
production employment. The lower end of the domestic employment range
assumes that gas cooking top domestic production employment does not
change at any TSL. Manufacturing more efficient gas cooking tops by
optimizing the burner and improving grates would not impact the
location where production occurs for this product class. Additionally,
this lower range assumes that TSLs set at EL 1 for all oven product
classes and the electric smooth element cooking top product class would
not change the domestic production employment. EL 1 would require SMPSs
for all oven product classes and can be achieved using low-standby-loss
electronic controls for the electric smooth element cooking top product
class. The majority of manufacturers already use SMPSs in their ovens
and are able to meet the efficiency requirements at EL 1 for the
electric smooth element cooking top product class. Adding these standby
features to models currently not using these features would not change
the location where production occurs for these product classes.
At the lower end of the range, DOE estimated that up to 50 percent
of domestic production employment for the electric smooth element
cooking top product class could be relocated abroad at max-tech.
Additionally, DOE estimated that up to 25 percent of domestic
production employment for the oven product classes could be relocated
abroad at max-tech. DOE estimates that there would be approximately 584
domestic production employees involved in the production of electric
smooth element cooking tops and 3,102 domestic production employees
involved in the production covering all oven product classes in 2027 in
the no-new-standards case. Using these values to estimate the lower end
of the range, DOE estimated that up to 1,068 domestic production
employees could be eliminated at TSL 3 (due to standards being set at
max-tech for the electric smooth element cooking top product class and
for all oven product classes).\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ 584 x 50% + 3,102 x 25% = 1,067.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE provides a range of potential impacts to domestic production
employment as each manufacturer would make a business decision that
best suits their individual product needs. However, manufacturers
stated during interviews that due to the larger size of most consumer
conventional cooking products, there are few units that are
manufactured and shipped from far distances such as Asia or Europe. The
vast majority of consumer conventional cooking products are currently
made in North America. Some manufacturers stated that even significant
changes to production lines would not cause them to shift their
production abroad, as several manufacturers either only produce
consumer conventional cooking products domestically or have made
significant investments to continue to produce consumer conventional
cooking products domestically.
DOE requests comment on the estimated potential domestic employment
impacts on consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers
presented in this SNOPR.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
Manufacturers stated that any standard requiring induction heating
technology for electric smooth element cooking tops would be very
difficult to meet since there are approximately 5 percent of shipments
currently using this technology. Additionally, any standards requiring
oven separators for the electric oven product classes would be very
difficult to meet since that would require completely redesigning the
oven cavity of almost every electric oven model currently on the
market.
All other ELs analyzed require making incremental improvements to
existing designs and should not present any manufacturing capacity
constraints given the 3-year compliance period proposed in this SNOPR.
[[Page 6883]]
DOE requests comment on the potential manufacturing capacity
constraints placed on consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers at the TSLs presented in this SNOPR.
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow
estimate may not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among
manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche product
manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting cost structures
substantially different from the industry average could be affected
disproportionately. DOE analyzed the impacts on small businesses in
section VI.B of this document. DOE also identified the commercial-style
manufacturer subgroup as a potential manufacturer subgroup that could
be adversely impacted by energy conservation standards based on the
results of the industry characterization.
The commercial-style manufacturer subgroup consists of consumer
conventional cooking product manufacturers that primarily sell gas
cooking tops, gas ovens, and electric self-clean ovens marketed as
commercial-style, either as a stand-alone product or as a component of
a conventional range. For the cooking top product classes, while
commercial-style manufacturers do not produce electric open (coil)
element cooking tops, some commercial-style manufacturers do produce
electric smooth element cooking tops. Of those commercial-style
manufacturers that do produce electric smooth element cooking tops, all
these manufacturers have products that use induction technology and
would be able to meet the max-tech for this product class.
Commercial-style manufacturers would likely face more difficulty
meeting potential standards set for the gas cooking top product class
than other consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers.
However, as previously stated in IV.C.1, all analyzed ELs for the gas
cooking top product class are achievable with continuous cast-iron
grates and at least one HIR burner. Therefore, while commercial-style
manufacturers would likely have to redesign a higher portion of their
gas cooking top models compared to other consumer conventional cooking
product manufacturers, all ELs for the gas cooking top product class
are achievable for commercial-style manufacturers.
For the oven product classes, the vast majority of commercial-style
electric and gas ovens already use SMPSs in their ovens and would not
have difficulty meeting potential standard levels requiring SMPSs for
any oven product classes. Additionally, commercial-style manufactures
typically have a higher percentage of gas oven models that use forced
convention than other consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers. However, like the rest of the market, there are very
few, if any, commercial-style electric ovens equipped with an oven
separator and it would be difficult for commercial-style manufacturers
to convert all of their oven cavities into ovens equipped with an oven
separator.
DOE requests comment on the potential impacts on commercial-style
manufacturers at the TSLs presented in this SNOPR.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency.
DOE evaluates product-specific regulations that will take effect
approximately 3 years before or after the estimated 2027 compliance
date of any new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products. This information is presented in Table
V.41.
Table V.41--Compliance Dates and Expected Conversion Expenses of Federal Energy Conservation Standards Affecting
Consumer Conventional Cooking Product Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry
Number of Approx. Industry conversion
Federal energy conservation Number of manufacturers standards conversion costs/product
standard manufacturers * affected from year costs (millions) revenue ***
this rule ** (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portable Air Conditioners, 85 FR 11 1 2025 $320.9 (2015$) 6.7
1378 (Jan. 10, 2020)...........
Room Air Conditioners,[dagger] 8 3 2026 22.8 (2020$) 0.5
87 FR 20608 (Apr. 7, 2022).....
Microwave Ovens,[dagger] 87 FR 18 10 2026 46.1 (2021$) 0.7
52282 (Aug. 24, 2022)..........
Clothes Dryers,[dagger] 87 FR 15 8 2027 149.7 (2020$) 1.8
51734 (Aug. 23, 2022)..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This column presents the total number of manufacturers identified in the energy conservation standard rule
contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
** This column presents the number of manufacturers producing consumer conventional cooking products that are
also listed as manufacturers in the listed energy conservation standard contributing to cumulative regulatory
burden.
*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of product revenue during the conversion
period. Industry conversion costs are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant
products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue from just the covered product/
equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs are
made and lasts from the publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the energy conservation
standard. The conversion period typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on the rulemaking.
[dagger] Indicates a NOPR publications. Values may change on publication of a Final Rule.
In addition to the rulemaking listed in Table V.41 DOE has ongoing
rulemakings for other products or equipment that consumer conventional
cooking product manufacturers
[[Page 6884]]
produce, including air cleaners; \106\ automatic commercial ice makers;
\107\ commercial clothes washers; \108\ dehumidifiers; \109\
miscellaneous refrigeration products; \110\ refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; \111\ and residential clothes
washers.\112\ If DOE proposes or finalizes any energy conservation
standards for these products or equipment prior to finalizing energy
conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products, DOE
will include the energy conservation standards for these other products
or equipment as part of the cumulative regulatory burden for the
consumer conventional cooking products final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035.
\107\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022.
\108\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0044.
\109\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0043.
\110\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039.
\111\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003.
\112\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative
regulatory burden on manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking
products associated with multiple DOE standards or product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies.
3. National Impact Analysis
This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy
savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of
the TSLs considered as potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended
standards for consumer conventional cooking products, DOE compared
their energy consumption under the no-new-standards case to their
anticipated energy consumption under each TSL. The savings are measured
over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period
that begins in the year of anticipated compliance with amended
standards (2027-2056). Table V.42 presents DOE's projections of the
national energy savings for each TSL considered for consumer
conventional cooking products. The savings were calculated using the
approach described in section IV.H.3 of this document.
Table V.42--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products; 30 Years of Shipments
[2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
-----------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quads
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy.................................................. 0.26 0.43 1.39
FFC energy...................................................... 0.28 0.46 1.47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Circular A-4 \113\ requires agencies to present analytical
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking,
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather than 30
years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy
for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation
standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised
standards.\114\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally
not synchronized with the product lifetime, product manufacturing
cycles, or other factors specific to consumer conventional cooking
products. Thus, such results are presented for informational purposes
only and are not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical
methodology. The NES sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year
analytical period are presented in Table V.43. The impacts are counted
over the lifetime of consumer conventional cooking products purchased
in 2027-2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003.
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed
July 11, 2022).
\114\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its
standards at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain
products, a 3-year period after any new standard is promulgated
before compliance is required, except that in no case may any new
standards be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the
previous standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year
compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may
undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year period and that the
3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year
analysis period may not be appropriate given the variability that
occurs in the timing of standards reviews and the fact that for some
products, the compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years.
Table V.43--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products; 9 Years of Shipments
[2027-2035]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
-----------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quads
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy.................................................. 0.07 0.12 0.37
FFC energy...................................................... 0.08 0.13 0.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6885]]
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for consumer
conventional cooking products. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on
regulatory analysis,\115\ DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and
a 3-percent real discount rate. Table V.44 shows the consumer NPV
results with impacts counted over the lifetime of products purchased in
2027-2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003.
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed
July 11, 2022).
Table V.44--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products; 30
Years of Shipments
[2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Discount rate -----------------------------------------------
1 2 3 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
billion 2021$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent....................................................... 0.96 1.71 (27.75)
7 percent....................................................... 0.33 0.65 (15.68)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Negative values denoted in parentheses.
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical
period are presented in Table V.45. The impacts are counted over the
lifetime of products purchased in 2027-2035. As mentioned previously,
such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision
criteria.
Table V.45--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products; 9
Years of Shipments
[2027-2035]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Discount rate (percent) -----------------------------------------------
1 2 3 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
billion 2021$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3............................................................... 0.32 0.61 (9.86)
7............................................................... 0.15 0.31 (7.48)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Negative values denoted in parentheses.
The previous results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate
the change in price for consumer conventional cooking products over the
analysis period (see section IV.F.1 of this document). DOE also
conducted a sensitivity analysis that considered one scenario with a
lower rate of price decline than the reference case and one scenario
with a higher rate of price decline than the reference case. The
results of these alternative cases are presented in appendix 10C of the
TSD for this SNOPR. In the high-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer
benefits is higher than in the default case. In the low-price-decline
case, the NPV of consumer benefits is lower than in the default case.
In each case, net benefits remain positive.
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
It is estimated that that amended energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking products would reduce energy expenditures
for consumers of those products, with the resulting net savings being
redirected to other forms of economic activity. These expected shifts
in spending and economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As
described in section IV.N of this document, DOE used an input/output
model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of
the TSLs that DOE considered. There are uncertainties involved in
projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of
the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes
(2027), where these uncertainties are reduced.
The results suggest that the proposed standards would be likely to
have a negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy.
The net change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in
national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated
effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the TSD for this SNOPR presents
detailed results regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
As discussed in section IV.C of this document, DOE has tentatively
concluded that the standards proposed in this SNOPR would not lessen
the utility or performance of the consumer conventional cooking
products under consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these
products currently offer units that meet or exceed the proposed
standards.
AHAM stated that the introduction of any new standards could have a
significant impact on the utility of cooking products by, for example,
potentially lowering burner input rates or requiring changes that would
result in less sturdy grates. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4)
As discuss in section IV.C of this document, when evaluating higher
ELs
[[Page 6886]]
for gas cooking tops, DOE ensured that all potential standard levels
would maintain the ability for cooking tops to offer at least one HIR
burner and continuous cast-iron grates.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to
result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section III.F.1.e
of this document, the Attorney General determines the impact, if any,
of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed
standard, and transmits such determination in writing to the Secretary,
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. To
assist the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE has
provided DOJ with copies of this SNOPR and the accompanying TSD for
review. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the proposed rule in
determining whether to proceed to a final rule. DOE will publish and
respond to DOJ's comments in that document.
As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this SNOPR, DOE estimates
that there are approximately 34 manufacturers of consumer conventional
cooking products supplying the domestic market, and that three major
manufacturers represent roughly 85 percent of the market. The major
manufacturers offer a full array of appliances under multiple brands at
a range of price points. Other manufacturers offer a much more limited
set of products that are focused on the higher end premium products or
other consumer niches.
The consumer conventional cooking product market can be divided
into three sub-markets: a smaller entry level ``value'' consumer
conventional cooking product market; a mass-market consumer
conventional cooking product market; and a premium commercial-style
consumer conventional cooking product market. The smaller entry level
consumer conventional cooking product market typically consists of
ovens, cooking tops, and ranges that have a width of 30'' or less.
These products typically compete on price, as consumers that purchase
these products are price sensitive. The mass-market consumer
conventional cooking product market makes up the vast majority of the
consumer conventional cooking product market. These are ovens, cooking
tops, and ranges that are sold in big box retail stores and larger
internet retailers. The premium commercial-style consumer conventional
cooking product market typically consists of ovens, cooking tops, and
ranges, that have a width of 30'' or larger that have gas cooking tops,
gas ovens, or electric self-clean ovens marketed as commercial-style,
either as a stand-alone product or as a component of a conventional
range. These products typically do compete on brand and features as
well as price and are significantly more expensive than the mass-
produced consumer conventional cooking products.
As discussed in section III.C of this document, there is currently
no test procedure for conventional ovens and efficiency gains can be
obtained from product redesigns of design improvements at low
incremental manufacturing costs.
For products sold in all three consumer conventional cooking
product sub-markets, meeting energy conservation standards for consumer
conventional ovens set at EL 1 (TSL 1 and TSL 2) would not present a
significant challenge for any consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturer. Based on the shipments analysis used in the NIA, DOE
estimates that approximately 95 percent of ovens will meet or exceed EL
1 by the estimated compliance date. The remaining five percent of the
market would need to purchase switch-mode power supplies to be used in
their consumer conventional ovens. Switch-mode power supplies are
widely used and readily available and constitute a minor increase in
production costs for the consumer conventional ovens that do not
currently use switch-mode power supplies.
As discussed in section III.C of this document, although there is a
new test procedure for conventional cooking tops, there is no current
performance standard. As a result, conventional cooking top design may
not be optimized to the IAEC metric and efficiency gains can be
obtained from product redesigns at low incremental manufacturing costs.
Regarding standards for consumer conventional cooking tops, the
majority of smaller entry level ``value'' consumer conventional cooking
products would not be significantly impacted by any energy conservation
standards set below max-tech for consumer conventional cooking tops.
The majority of consumer conventional cooking tops sold in the smaller
entry level ``value'' consumer conventional cooking product market
either have electric open (coil) element cooking tops or gas-cooking
tops with thinner non-continuous grates. DOE is only considering a
baseline efficiency level for electric open (coil) element cooking tops
that can be meet by all products. Gas cooking tops with thinner non-
continuous grates typically are at max-tech. It is unlikely that many
gas cooking tops sold in the smaller entry level ``value'' consumer
conventional cooking product market would have to redesign their
products to meet standards set at any efficiency level.
For the mass-market consumer conventional cooking product market,
most electric smooth element cooking tops will meet or exceed standards
set at EL 1 (TSL 1 and TSL 2). The majority of electric smooth element
cooking tops that are at baseline, EL 1, and EL 2 (i.e., not the
electric smooth cooking tops that use induction technology, which are
electric smooth element cooking tops meting max-tech) are sold in the
mass-market consumer conventional cooking product market. Based on the
shipments analysis used in the NIA, DOE estimates that approximately 80
percent of electric smooth element cooking tops will meet or exceed EL
1 by the estimated compliance date.
Most of the gas cooking top products sold in the mass-market
consumer conventional cooking product market would have to be
redesigned to meet standards set at max-tech (TSL 2 and TSL 3). Based
on the shipments analysis used in the NIA, DOE estimates that
approximately 96 percent of gas cooking tops will need to be redesigned
to meet standards set at max-tech by the estimated compliance date.
The premium commercial-style consumer conventional cooking product
market typically uses either electric cooking tops that use induction
technology and are at max-tech for the electric smooth element cooking
top product class or gas cooking tops. All electric smooth element
cooking tops using induction technology would be able to meet standards
set at max-tech for the electric smooth element product class. Premium
commercial-style manufacturers would likely face more difficulty
meeting potential standards set for the gas cooking top product class
than other consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers.
However, as previously stated in section IV.C.1 of this document, all
analyzed ELs for the gas cooking top product class are achievable with
continuous cast-iron grates and at least one HIR burner. Therefore,
while commercial-style manufacturers would likely have to redesign a
higher portion of their gas cooking top models compared to other
consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers, all ELs for the
gas cooking top product class are achievable for commercial-style
manufacturers. Additionally, premium commercial-style consumer
conventional cooking products typically are not as cost sensitive as
the other consumer
[[Page 6887]]
conventional cooking product markets. Premium commercial-style consumer
conventional cooking product typically sell for more than twice the
cost of mass-market consumer conventional cooking products. DOE
anticipates that premium commercial-style consumer conventional cooking
product manufacturers are more likely to be able to pass on cost
increases to their customers than the other consumer conventional
cooking product markets.
Overall, DOE does not anticipate that energy conservation standards
set at TSL 1 or TSL 2 would significantly alter the current market
structure that consumer conventional cooking products are currently
sold.
DOE does not expect the proposed rule to increase the concentration
in an already concentrated market. DOE understands that barriers to
entry or expansion associated with manufacturing and selling cooking
products is high particularly in the mass-market segment. The cost of
developing brand recognition; achieving manufacturing scale to lower
production costs; and developing a distribution network, are all
significant challenges. The industry has responded by segmenting the
market into more focused markets that allow differentiation and
competition on factors other than price. For the reasons described in
this section, the proposed rule likely would not alter the competitive
balance or market structure of the consumer conventional cooking
product industry.
DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive
impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition,
stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding
these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for information to
send comments to DOJ.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the
environmental impacts (costs) of energy production.
DOE seeks comment on the potential impacts on energy security as a
result of amended standards for cooking products, which reduce the use
of natural gas as a result of more-efficient cooking appliances.
Reduced in-home gas combustion may deliver additional health
benefits to consumers and their families by reducing exposure to
various pollutants. Reduced electricity demand due to energy
conservation standards is also likely to reduce the cost of maintaining
the reliability of the electricity system, particularly during peak-
load periods. Chapter 15 in the TSD for this SNOPR presents the
estimated impacts on electricity generating capacity, relative to the
no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE considered in this
rulemaking.
Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking products is expected to
yield environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of
certain air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table V.46 provides DOE's
estimate of cumulative emissions reductions expected to result from the
TSLs considered in this rulemaking. The emissions were calculated using
the multipliers discussed in section IV.K of this document. DOE reports
annual emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the TSD for
this SNOPR.
Table V.46--Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
-----------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Sector Emissions:
CO2 (million metric tons)................................... 10.7 19.6 50.7
CH4 (thousand tons)......................................... 0.5 0.7 3.0
N2O (thousand tons)......................................... 0.1 0.1 0.4
SO2 (thousand tons)......................................... 2.2 2.2 16.6
NOX (thousand tons)......................................... 7.7 15.5 31.3
Hg (tons)................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.11
Upstream Emissions:
CO2 (million metric tons)................................... 1.2 2.3 4.8
CH4 (thousand tons)......................................... 120.6 244.2 479.2
N2O (thousand tons)......................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0
SO2 (thousand tons)......................................... 0.0 0.0 0.2
NOX (thousand tons)......................................... 18.1 36.3 73.7
Hg (tons)................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total FFC Emissions:
CO2 (million metric tons)................................... 11.9 21.9 55.5
CH4 (thousand tons)......................................... 121.1 244.9 482.2
N2O (thousand tons)......................................... 0.1 0.1 0.4
SO2 (thousand tons)......................................... 2.2 2.2 16.7
NOX (thousand tons)......................................... 25.9 51.8 105.0
Hg (tons)................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the analysis for this rulemaking, DOE estimated monetary
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2
that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for consumer
conventional cooking products. Section IV.L of this document discusses
the SC-CO2 values that DOE used. Table V.47 presents the
value of CO2 emissions reduction at each TSL for each of the
SC-CO2 cases. The time-series of annual values is presented
for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
[[Page 6888]]
Table V.47--Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products Shipped in 2027-
2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC-CO2 case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistics
---------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3%
---------------------------------------------------------------
95th
Average Average Average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
million 2021$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 105.2 464.5 731.9 1,409.9
2............................................... 194.3 856.8 1,349.7 2,601.2
3............................................... 488.9 2,160.9 3,405.9 6,558.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section IV.L.2 of this document, DOE estimated the
climate benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of methane
and N2O that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs
for consumer conventional cooking products. Table V.48 presents the
value of the CH4 emissions reduction at each TSL, and Table
V.49 presents the value of the N2O emissions reduction at
each TSL. The time-series of annual values is presented for the
proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
Table V.48--Present Value of Methane Emissions Reduction for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products Shipped in
2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC-CH4 case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistics
---------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3%
---------------------------------------------------------------
95th
Average Average Average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
million 2021$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 49.8 152.5 214.2 403.4
2............................................... 101.1 309.0 433.8 817.4
3............................................... 197.1 606.1 851.8 1,603.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.49--Present Value of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reduction for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC-N2O case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistics
---------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3%
---------------------------------------------------------------
95th
Average Average Average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
million 2021$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 0.21 0.89 1.38 2.36
2............................................... 0.28 1.17 1.83 3.11
3............................................... 1.42 5.84 9.13 15.57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the
global and U.S. economy continues to evolve rapidly. DOE, together with
other Federal agencies, will continue to review methodologies for
estimating the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other
GHG emissions. This ongoing review will consider the comments on this
subject that are part of the public record for this and other
rulemakings, as well as other methodological assumptions and issues.
DOE notes that the proposed standards would be economically justified
even without inclusion of monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.
DOE also estimated the monetary value of the health benefits
associated with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions
anticipated to result from the considered TSLs for consumer
conventional cooking products. The dollar-per-ton values that DOE used
are discussed in section IV.L of this document. Table V.50 presents the
present value for NOX emissions reduction for each TSL
calculated using 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, and Table V.51
presents similar results for SO2 emissions reductions. The
results in these tables reflect application
[[Page 6889]]
of EPA's low dollar-per-ton values, which DOE used to be conservative.
The time-series of annual values is presented for the proposed TSL in
chapter 14 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
Table V.50--Present Value of NO2 Emissions Reduction for Consumer
Conventional Cooking Products Shipped in 2027-2056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount
TSL rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
million 2021$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 793.7 297.5
2....................................... 1,521.9 572.9
3....................................... 3,482.5 1,299.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.51--Present Value of SO2 Emissions Reduction for Consumer
Conventional Cooking Products Shipped in 2027-2056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount
TSL rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
million 2021$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 109.0 41.1
2....................................... 111.0 41.9
3....................................... 842.8 319.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has not considered the monetary benefits of the reduction of Hg
for this proposed rule. DOE has also not quantitatively assessed the
health benefits of reducing in-home exposure to particulate matter,
nitrogen dioxide, and other hazardous air pollutants. Such in-home
emissions may be associated with a variety of serious respiratory and
cardiovascular conditions and other health risks. Not all the public
health and environmental benefits from the reduction of greenhouse
gases, NOX, and SO2 are captured in the values
above, and additional unquantified benefits from the reductions of
those pollutants as well as from the reduction of Hg, direct PM, and
other co-pollutants may be significant. For example, studies have
indicated that gas ranges, particularly when used without venting
systems, can expose household members to indoor air pollution at levels
that exceed health-based guidelines.
DOE seeks comment on any impacts of its proposals in this SNOPR on
indoor air pollutants released by gas cooking products, as well as any
other design approaches, control strategies, or other measures to
mitigate these emissions.
7. Other Factors
The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No
other factors were considered in this analysis.
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
Table V.52 presents the NPV values that result from adding the
estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced
GHG, NOX and SO2 emissions to the NPV of consumer
benefits calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. The
consumer benefits are domestic U.S. monetary savings that occur as a
result of purchasing the covered products, and are measured for the
lifetime of products shipped in 2027-2056. The climate benefits
associated with reduced GHG emissions resulting from the adopted
standards are global benefits and are also calculated based on the
lifetime of consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 2027-
2056.
Table V.52--Consumer NPV Combined With Present Value of Climate Benefits and Health Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case.......................................... 2.02 3.64 (22.74)
3% Average SC-GHG case.......................................... 2.49 4.51 (20.65)
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........................................ 2.81 5.13 (19.16)
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case.................................. 3.68 6.77 (15.25)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case.......................................... 0.82 1.56 (13.37)
3% Average SC-GHG case.......................................... 1.28 2.43 (11.29)
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........................................ 1.61 3.05 (9.79)
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case.................................. 2.48 4.68 (5.88)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Negative values denoted in parentheses.
[[Page 6890]]
C. Conclusion
When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by,
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
For this SNOPR, DOE considered the impacts of new and amended
standards for consumer conventional cooking products at each TSL,
beginning with the maximum technologically feasible level, to determine
whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level
was not justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level
and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest
efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically
justified and saves a significant amount of energy. DOE refers to this
process at the ``walk-down'' analysis.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on
employment.
DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of
information or informational asymmetries, (2) a lack of sufficient
salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits, (3) a lack of
sufficient personal financial savings to warrant delaying or altering
purchases, (4) excessive focus on the short term, in the form of
inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings relative to
available returns on other investments, due to loss aversion, myopia,
inattention, or other factors, (5) computational or other difficulties
associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs, and (6) a
divergence in incentives (for example, between renters and owners, or
builders and purchasers, or between current and subsequent owners).
Having less than perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty
about the future, consumers may trade off these types of investments at
a higher-than-expected rate between current consumption and uncertain
future energy cost savings.
In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to
lost revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy
savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the
standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products
purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings
from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of
shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9
of the TSD for this SNOPR. However, DOE's current analysis does not
explicitly control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences,
preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, or
consumer price sensitivity variation according to household
income.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand,
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883.
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard,
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy conservation
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of Household Energy
Consumption and Technology Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf (last accessed June 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE welcomes data submissions and comments that will provide for a
fuller assessment of the potential impact of energy conservation
standards on consumer choice and how to quantify this impact in its
regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer Conventional
Cooking Products Standards
Table V.53 and Table V.54 summarize the quantitative impacts
estimated for each TSL for consumer conventional cooking products. The
national impacts are measured over the lifetime of consumer
conventional cooking products purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended standards
(2027-2056). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of
emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. DOE is
presenting monetized benefits in accordance with the applicable
Executive Orders and DOE would reach the same conclusion presented in
this notice in the absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases,
including the Interim Estimates presented by the Interagency Working
Group. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in
section V.A of this document.
Table V.53--Summary of Analytical Results for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings:
Quads....................................................... 0.28 0.46 1.47
CO2 (million metric tons)................................... 11.9 21.9 55.5
[[Page 6891]]
CH4 (thousand tons)......................................... 121.1 244.9 482.2
N2O (thousand tons)......................................... 0.1 0.1 0.4
SO2 (thousand tons)......................................... 2.2 2.2 16.7
NOX (thousand tons)......................................... 25.9 51.8 105.0
Hg (tons)................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.11
Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate,
billion 2021$):
Consumer Operating Cost Savings............................. 1.53 2.28 8.02
Climate Benefits *.......................................... 0.62 1.17 2.77
Health Benefits **.......................................... 0.90 1.63 4.33
Total Benefits [dagger]................................. 3.05 5.08 15.12
-----------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]................. 0.56 0.56 35.77
-----------------------------------------------
Consumer Net Benefits ***................................... 0.96 1.71 (27.75)
Total Net Benefits ***.................................. 2.49 4.51 (20.65)
Present Value of Monetized Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate,
billion 2021$):
Consumer Operating Cost Savings............................. 0.63 0.95 3.17
Climate Benefits*........................................... 0.62 1.17 2.77
Health Benefits**........................................... 0.34 0.61 1.62
Total Benefits[dagger].................................. 1.59 2.74 7.56
-----------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]................. 0.31 0.31 18.85
-----------------------------------------------
Consumer Net Benefits***.................................... 0.33 0.65 (15.68)
Total Net Monetized Benefits***......................... 1.28 2.43 (11.29)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped
in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in
2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together,
these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated
with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single
central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted
the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary
injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's
order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined
the defendants in that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim
estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents
monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
of this document for more details.
*** Negative values denoted in parentheses.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes
the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
Table V.54--Summary of Analytical Results for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products TSLs: Manufacturer and
Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts:
Industry NPV (million 2021$) (No-new-standards case INPV = 1,502-1,506 1,452-1,456 238-422
1,607).....................................................
Industry NPV (% change)..................................... (6.5)-(6.3) (9.6)-(9.4) (85.2)-(73.8)
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021$):
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops................... $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops........................ $13.29 $13.29 ($580.31)
Gas Cooking Tops............................................ $3.88 $21.89 $21.89
Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding....................... $0.99 $0.99 ($29.92)
Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.................. $0.95 $0.95 ($33.05)
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding..................... $1.02 $1.02 ($15.31)
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In................ $1.01 $1.01 ($10.84)
Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding............................ $0.65 $0.65 ($7.56)
Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In....................... $0.59 $0.59 ($13.37)
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding.......................... $0.70 $0.70 ($0.86)
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In..................... $0.60 $0.60 ($4.52)
Shipment-Weighted Average *................................. $3.19 $6.75 ($87.60)
Consumer Simple PBP (years):
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops................... n.a. n.a. n.a.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops........................ 0.6 0.6 87.5
[[Page 6892]]
Gas Cooking Tops............................................ 8.4 5.0 5.0
Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding....................... 1.7 1.7 17.0
Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.................. 1.8 1.8 17.2
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding..................... 1.7 1.7 17.0
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In................ 1.8 1.8 17.2
Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding............................ 1.9 1.9 14.1
Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In....................... 2.0 2.0 14.4
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding.......................... 1.9 1.9 14.1
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In..................... 2.0 2.0 14.4
Shipment-Weighted Average *................................. 2.7 2.0 22.4
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost:
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops................... 0% 0% 0%
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops........................ 0% 0% 95%
Gas Cooking Tops............................................ 27% 18% 18%
Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding....................... 0% 0% 80%
Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.................. 0% 0% 81%
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding..................... 0% 0% 75%
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In................ 0% 0% 72%
Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding............................ 1% 1% 33%
Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In....................... 1% 1% 56%
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding.......................... 1% 1% 6%
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In..................... 1% 1% 20%
Shipment-Weighted Average *................................. 6% 4% 48%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. The entry ``n.a.'' means not applicable the evaluated standard is the
baseline.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027.
DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels for all product classes except for electric open
(coil) element cooking tops, for which the only considered efficiency
level is the baseline. TSL 3 would save an estimated 1.47 quads of
energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of
consumer benefit would decrease compared to the no-new-standards case
by $15.68 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and by $27.75
billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 55.5 Mt of
CO2, 16.7 thousand tons of SO2, 105.0 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.11 tons of Hg, 482.2 thousand tons of
CH4, and 0.4 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 3 is $2.77 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 3 is $1.62 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $4.33
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $11.29
billion less than the no-new-standards case. Using a 3-percent discount
rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is
$20.65 billion less than the no-new-standards case. The estimated total
NPV is provided for additional information. However, DOE primarily
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a
proposed standard level is economically justified.
At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $22 for gas
cooking tops and an average LCC loss of $580 for electric smooth
element cooking tops, $30 for freestanding electric standard ovens, $33
for built-in/slide-in electric standard ovens, $15 for freestanding
electric self-clean ovens, $11 for built-in/slide-in electric self-
clean ovens, $8 for freestanding gas standard ovens, $13 for built-in/
slide-in gas standard ovens, $1 for freestanding gas self-clean ovens,
and $5 for built-in/slide-in gas self-clean ovens. The simple payback
period is 87.5 years for electric smooth element cooking tops, 5.0
years for gas cooking tops, 17.0 years for freestanding electric ovens,
17.2 years for built-in/slide-in electric ovens, 14.1 years for
freestanding gas ovens, and 14.4 years for built-in/slide-in gas ovens.
The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 95 percent for
electric smooth element cooking tops, 18 percent for gas cooking tops,
80 percent for freestanding electric standard ovens, 81 percent for
built-in/slide-in electric standard ovens, 75 percent for freestanding
electric self-clean ovens, 72 percent for built-in/slide-in electric
self-clean ovens, 33 percent for freestanding gas standard ovens, 56
percent for built-in/slide-in gas standard ovens, 6 percent for
freestanding gas self-clean ovens, and 20 percent for built-in/slide-in
gas self-clean ovens. At TSL 3, the proposed standard for electric open
(coil) element cooking tops is at the baseline resulting in no LCC
impact, an undefined PBP, and no consumers experiencing a net LCC cost.
At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$1,368.6 million to a decrease of $1,185.1 million, which corresponds
to decreases of 85.2 percent and 73.8 percent, respectively. DOE
estimates that industry must invest $1,846.4 million to comply with
standards set at TSL 3. DOE estimates that 100 percent of the electric
open (coil) element cooking top shipments, 5 percent of the electric
smooth element cooking top shipments, 4 percent of the gas cooking top
shipments, zero percent of the electric standard oven (freestanding and
built-in) shipments, zero percent of the electric self-clean oven
(freestanding) shipments, 2 percent of the electric self-clean (built-
in) shipments, 62 percent of gas standard oven (freestanding)
shipments, 38 percent of the gas standard oven (built-in) shipments, 93
percent of the gas self-clean oven (freestanding) shipments, and 77
percent of the gas self-clean (built-in) shipments would already meet
the efficiency levels required at TSL 3 in 2027.
[[Page 6893]]
The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for consumer
conventional cooking products, the benefits of energy savings, emission
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions
reductions would be outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer
benefits, the economic burden on many consumers (e.g., negative LCC
savings across all product classes except gas cooking tops), and the
significant impacts on manufacturers, including the large conversion
costs and the significant reduction in INPV. A significant fraction of
electric smooth element cooking top, electric oven, and gas standard
oven consumers would experience a net LCC cost and negative LCC
savings. The consumer NPV is negative at both 3 and 7 percent. The
potential reduction in INPV could be as high as 85.2 percent.
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not
economically justified as a whole, and in particular for all product
classes except for gas cooking tops. DOE notes that for gas cooking
tops, the only product class with positive LCC savings, the same EL (2)
is carried forward to TSL 2.
DOE then considered TSL 2, which represents the baseline efficiency
for electric open (coil) element cooking tops, efficiency level 1 for
electric smooth element cooking tops, electric ovens, and gas ovens,
and efficiency level 2 for gas cooking tops. TSL 2 would save an
estimated 0.46 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $0.65 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.71 billion using a discount rate of
3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 21.9 Mt of
CO2, 2.2 thousand tons of SO2, 51.8 thousand tons
of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 244.9 thousand tons of
CH4, and 0.1 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 2 is $1.17 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 2 is $0.61 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $1.63
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $2.43
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $4.51 billion. The estimated total
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a
proposed standard level is economically justified.
At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings of $13 for electric
smooth element cooking tops, $22 for gas cooking tops, $1 for electric
ovens, and $1 for gas ovens. The simple payback period is 0.6 years for
electric smooth element cooking tops, 5.0 years for gas cooking tops,
1.7 years for freestanding electric ovens, 1.8 years for built-in/
slide-in electric ovens, 1.9 years for freestanding gas ovens, and 2.0
years for built-in/slide-in gas ovens. The fraction of consumers that
experience a net LCC cost is 0 percent for electric smooth element
cooking tops, 18 percent for gas cooking tops, 0 percent for electric
ovens, and 1 percent for gas ovens. At TSL 2, the proposed standard for
electric open (coil) element cooking tops is at the baseline resulting
in no LCC impact, an undefined PBP, and no consumers experiencing a net
LCC cost.
At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$154.8 million to a decrease of $150.4 million, which correspond to
decreases of 9.6 percent and 9.4 percent, respectively. DOE estimates
that industry must invest $183.4 million to comply with standards set
at TSL 2. DOE estimates that 100 percent of the electric open (coil)
element cooking top shipments, 80 percent of the electric smooth
element cooking top shipments, 4 percent of the gas cooking top
shipments, 95 percent of the electric oven shipments, and 96 percent of
the gas oven shipments would already meet or exceed the efficiency
levels required at TSL 2 in 2027.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that at a standard set
at TSL 2 for consumer conventional cooking products would be
economically justified for all product classes. At this TSL, the
average LCC savings for all conventional cooking product classes is
positive. A shipment-weighted 4 percent of conventional cooking product
consumers experience a net cost, with the highest in any single product
class being 18 percent for gas cooking tops; the percent net cost for
all other product classes is between 0 to 1 percent. The FFC national
energy savings are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is
positive using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably,
the benefits to consumers vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers. At
TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the more
conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 4 times higher than the
maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard levels at
TSL 2 are economically justified even without weighing the estimated
monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions
are included--representing $1.17 billion in climate benefits
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and
$1.63 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $0.61 billion (using
a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--the rationale becomes
stronger still.
As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under
EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative
analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of
energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically
justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 70892, 70908.
Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select the
proposed energy conservation standards, DOE notes that TSL 2 has a
lower percentage of consumers experiencing a net cost and a shorter
payback period relative to TSL 3.
Although DOE considered proposed amended standard levels for
conventional cooking products by grouping the efficiency levels for
each product class into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency
levels in its analysis. For electric open (coil) element cooking tops,
TSL 2 represents the baseline efficiency level, the only level
considered in this product class in this SNOPR. For electric smooth
element cooking tops, TSL 2 represents EL 1 which incorporates low-
standby-loss electronic controls. Setting a standard at EL 2 or EL 3
would result in a larger percentage of consumers experiencing a net LCC
cost and longer payback periods relative to EL 1. For gas cooking tops,
TSL 2 represents EL 2, the maximum measured efficiency for products
with at least one HIR burner, which is determined to be technologically
feasible and economically justified. For electric and gas ovens, TSL 2
corresponds to EL 1, which incorporates switch mode power supplies. A
standard at EL 2 or EL 3 for electric ovens would result in a
significantly higher percentage of consumers experiencing a net LCC
cost and longer payback periods relative to EL 1. Similarly, for gas
ovens, a
[[Page 6894]]
standard at EL 2 would result in a larger percentage of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost and longer payback periods relative to EL
1. The proposed standard levels at TSL 2 results in positive LCC
savings for all product classes and a lower percentage of consumers
experiencing a net cost to the point where DOE has tentatively
concluded that they are economically justified, as discussed for TSL 2
in the preceding paragraphs.
Therefore, based on the above considerations, DOE proposes to adopt
the energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products at TSL 2. The proposed amended energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional cooking products, are shown in Table V.55 and
Table V.56.
Table V.55--Proposed Performance Energy Conservation Standards for
Conventional Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum integrated annual energy
Product class consumption (IAEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking 199 kWh/year.
Tops.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops. 207 kWh/year.
Gas Cooking Tops..................... 1,204 kBtu/year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.56--Proposed Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards for
Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class Prescriptive standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard, Freestanding...... Shall not be equipped with a
control system that uses linear
power supply.
Electric Standard, Built-In/Slide-In
Electric Self-Clean, Freestanding
Electric Self-Clean, Built-In/Slide-
In
Gas Standard, Freestanding........... The control system for gas ovens
shall:
Gas Standard, Built-In/Slide-In...... (1) Not be equipped with a
constant burning pilot light;
and
Gas Self-Clean, Freestanding......... (2) Not be equipped with a
linear power supply.
Gas Self-Clean, Built-In/Slide-In
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2021$) of the
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy,
minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized
monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission
reductions.
Table V.57 shows the annualized values for consumer conventional
cooking products under TSL 2, expressed in 2021$. The results under the
primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking products is $32.5
million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated
annual benefits are $100.8 million from reduced equipment operating
costs, $67.0 million from GHG reductions, and $64.9 million from
reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this case, the
net benefit amounts to $200.3 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards for consumer conventional
cooking products is $32.2 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $130.7 million in
reduced operating costs, $67.0 million from GHG reductions, and $93.8
million from reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In
this case, the net benefit amounts to $259.2 million per year.
Table V.57--Table V.57 Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Conventional Cooking Products (TSL 2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
million 2021$/year
-----------------------------------------------
Low-net- High-net-
Primary benefits benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 130.7 124.7 137.9
Climate Benefits *.............................................. 67.0 65.3 68.4
Health Benefits **.............................................. 93.8 91.4 95.6
-----------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]........................... 291.5 281.4 301.8
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..................... 32.2 36.1 31.4
Net Monetized Benefits.......................................... 259.2 245.2 270.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6895]]
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 100.8 96.5 105.8
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)........................... 67.0 65.3 68.4
Health Benefits **.............................................. 64.9 63.4 66.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]........................... 232.8 225.3 240.2
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..................... 32.5 35.8 31.8
Net Monetized Benefits.......................................... 200.3 189.5 208.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped
in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in
2027-2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices
from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In
addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline
rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods
used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that
the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-
GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal
government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As
reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized
benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability
to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health
benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more
details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
Manufacturers, including importers, must use product-specific
certification templates to certify compliance to DOE. For consumer
conventional cooking products, the certification template reflects the
general certification requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.12 and the
product-specific requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.23.
In manufacturer interviews, multiple manufacturers expressed
concern about the variability of cooking top test results and the
potential impact on certifying compliance, but none provided
information regarding how DOE should consider such variability in its
analysis of potential energy conservation standards for cooking tops.
DOE notes that as part of the August 2022 TP Final Rule, a sampling
plan for cooking tops was established at 10 CFR 429.23, requiring that
a sample of sufficient size be tested to ensure that any represented
value of IAEC be greater than the mean of the sample or than the upper
97.5 percent confidence limit of the true mean divided by 1.05. DOE is
not proposing to amend the product-specific certification requirements
for these products in this SNOPR because it does not have information
regarding whether the confidence limit should be adjusted.
DOE seeks comment and data to potentially re-evaluate the sampling
plan for cooking tops in the context of any potential performance
standards for these products.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011),
requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are
difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives,
taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable,
the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities
must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to
direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage
the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or
providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in OMB has
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from
[[Page 6896]]
technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the
reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action is
consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed regulatory action constitutes a
``significant regulatory action within the scope of section 3(f)(1)''
of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O.
12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying
analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the proposed
regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a
quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the
underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an
explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the
identified potential alternatives. These assessments are summarized in
this preamble and further detail can be found in the technical support
document for this rulemaking.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has
prepared the following IRFA for the products that are the subject of
this rulemaking.
For manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products, the
SBA has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified
as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the
SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small
entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR
part 121.) The size standards are listed by North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS'') code and industry description and are
available at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
Manufacturing of consumer conventional cooking products is classified
under NAICS 335220, ``Major Household Appliance Manufacturing.'' The
SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer for an entity to be
considered as a small business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)), and directs DOE
to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)) EPCA further provides that, not later
than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination
that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) This rulemaking is
in accordance with DOE's obligations under EPCA.
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
NAECA, Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive
standards for gas cooking products, requiring gas ranges and ovens with
an electrical supply cord that are manufactured on or after January 1,
1990, not to be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. (42
U.S.C.6295(h)(1)) NAECA also directed DOE to conduct two cycles of
rulemakings to determine if more stringent or additional standards were
justified for kitchen ranges and ovens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)) EPCA
additionally requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance
of a final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE publish a NOPR
proposing new standards or a notification of determination that the
existing standards do not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
This rulemaking is also in accordance with the six-year review required
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1).
3. Description of Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
DOE has recently conducted a focused inquiry into small business
manufacturers of the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE used the
SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small
entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. The size
standards are listed by NAICS code as well as by industry description
and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-
standards. Manufacturing cooking tops is classified under NAICS 335220,
``major household appliance manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold
of 1,500 employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small
business for this category. DOE used available public information to
identify potential small manufacturers. DOE accessed the Compliance
Certification Database \118\ (CCD), the Modernized Appliance Efficiency
Database System \119\ (MAEDbS), and the National Resources Canada
database \120\ (NRCan) to create a list of companies that import or
otherwise manufacture the products covered by this SNOPR. Additionally,
in response to the September 2016 SNOPR, Felix Storch provided a list
of potential small businesses, not previously identified in the
September 2016 SNOPR.\121\ (Felix Storch, No. 62 at p. 2) Once DOE
created a list of potential manufacturers, DOE used market research
tools to determine whether any companies met SBA's definition of a
small entity--based on the total number of employees for each company
including parent, subsidiary, and sister entities--and gather annual
revenue estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification
Management System, available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
\119\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System, available at:
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Login.aspx.
\120\ Natural Resources Canada searchable product list,
available at: oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/.
\121\ Some of the companies Felix Storch identified, either had
more than 1,500 employees, were completely foreign owned and
operated, or did not sell any products covered by this rulemaking.
Therefore, these companies do not meet SBA's definition of a small
business and DOE did not include these companies in this IRFA. The
remaining companies that do meet SBA's definition of a small
business were included in this IRFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on DOE's analysis, DOE identified 34 companies potentially
manufacturing consumer conventional cooking products covered by this
rulemaking. DOE screened out companies that have more than 1,500 total
employees or are entirely foreign owned and operated, and therefore do
not meet SBA's requirements to be considered a small entity. Of the 34
companies DOE identified as manufacturing consumer conventional cooking
products sold in the United States, 15 were identified as potential
small businesses.
[[Page 6897]]
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
DOE is proposing TSL 2 in this SNOPR. For all oven product classes,
TSL 2 requires that the ovens not be equipped with a linear power
supply. Based on DOE's shipment analysis more than 95 percent of ovens
use a switch mode power supply and therefore are not equipped with a
linear power supply. Based on DOE's shipment analysis, DOE assumed
most, if not all, small businesses already use switch mode power
supplies for the ovens they manufacturer. If any small businesses do
still use linear power supplies in their ovens, there would be minimal
conversion costs to these small businesses, as switch mode power
supplies can be purchased as a separate component and would most likely
not require a significant redesign to incorporate these switch mode
power supplies. The remainder of this cost analysis focuses on the
costs associated with complying with the proposed cooking top energy
conservation standards.
As stated in the previous section, DOE identified 15 potential
small manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products. All 15
of these small businesses manufacture cooking tops. These 15 small
businesses can be grouped into two manufacturing groups: those that
manufacture entry level cooking tops and those that manufacture premium
cooking tops.
Gas cooking top entry level products typically have thinner non-
continuous grates with only one burner above 14,000 BTUs (although some
of these small businesses may offer a limited number of models with
thicker continuous grates and more than one burner above 14,000 BTUs).
Electric cooking top entry level products typically have electric coil
element cooking tops (although a few small businesses may have up to 25
percent of their electric ranges or electric cooking tops using
electric smooth element cooking tops). These entry level small
businesses usually compete on price in the market.
Gas cooking top premium products typically have thicker continuous
grates with multiple burners above 14,000 BTUs. Electric cooking top
premium products use smooth element, typically with induction
technology. Small businesses manufacturing premium products do not
offer electric coil element cooking tops. Lastly, small businesses
manufacturing premium products typically compete on the high quality
and professional look and design of their products. These ranges or
cooking tops are typically significantly more expensive than entry
level products.
Based on data from each small business's websites, DOE estimated
the number of basic models each small business offers.
Table VI.2--Number of Unique Basic Models for Each Small Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of cooking top basic models (by
product class)
Manufacturer Small business type -----------------------------------------------
Smooth Open (coil)
Gas element element
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business 1...................... Entry Level............. 4 4
Small Business 2...................... Entry Level............. 14 13
Small Business 3...................... Entry Level............. 3 2 3
Small Business 4...................... Entry Level............. 30
Small Business 5...................... Entry Level............. 24 13
Small Business 6...................... Entry Level............. 27 13 28
Small Business 7...................... Premium................. 14
Small Business 8...................... Premium................. 42
Small Business 9...................... Premium................. 16
Small Business 10..................... Premium................. 24 5
Small Business 11..................... Premium................. 12
Small Business 12..................... Premium................. 11
Small Business 13..................... Premium................. 13
Small Business 14..................... Premium................. 14 1
Small Business 15..................... Premium................. 20 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated the small business conversion costs and testing costs
using the same methodology used to estimate the industry conversion
costs, described in section IV.J.2.c of this document. There are two
types of conversion costs that small businesses could incur due to the
proposed standards: product conversion costs (including any testing
costs) and capital conversion costs. Felix Storch commented in response
to the September 2016 SNOPR that small manufacturers often lack the
staff with expertise to fully understand the test procedures,
complexities and nuances of the regulations. (Felix Storch, No. 62 at
p. 2) Additionally, Felix Storch commented that small manufacturers pay
substantially more and have longer lead times for energy testing.
(Felix Storch, No. 62 at p. 3) In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE
estimated a lower per unit testing costs for testing done in-house and
a more costly third-party lab per unit testing cost. For this IRFA, DOE
assumed all small businesses would incur the more costly third-party
lab per unit testing cost, as most small businesses do not have in-
house testing capabilities or capacity to test all their products in
accordance with the DOE test procedure.
Product conversion costs are investments in R&D, testing,
marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product
designs comply with new and amended energy conservation standards.
Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and
equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities
such that new compliant product designs can be fabricated and
assembled. Manufacturers would have to incur testing costs for all
cooking tops since DOE is proposing to establish a new energy
conservation standard for cooking tops. Therefore, even products that
meet the proposed energy conservation standard would incur testing
costs to test these cooking tops to demonstrate compliance with the
proposed energy conservation
[[Page 6898]]
standards. However, manufacturers would only incur R&D product
conversion costs and capital conversion costs if they have products
that do not meet the energy conservation standards.
Based on the estimated model counts for each cooking top product
class shown in Table VI.2 and the conversion cost and testing cost
methodology used to calculate industry conversion costs, DOE estimated
the conversion costs and testing costs for each small business,
displayed in Table VI.3. DOE then used D&B Hoovers \122\ to estimate
the annual revenue for each small business. Manufacturers will have 3
years between publication of a final rule and compliance with the
energy conservation standards. Therefore, DOE presents the estimated
conversion costs and testing costs as a percent of the estimated 3
years of annual revenue for each small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ See: app.avention.com. Last accessed on August 22, 2022.
Table VI.3--Estimated Conversion Costs and Annual Revenue for Each Small Business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion
Total costs as a %
Manufacturer Small business type conversion Annual of 3-years of
and testing revenue annual
costs revenue (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business 1...................... Entry Level............. $358,000 $950,000 13
Small Business 2...................... Entry Level............. 814,000 8,780,000 3
Small Business 3...................... Entry Level............. 945,400 58,630,000 1
Small Business 4...................... Entry Level............. 303,400 31,370,000 <1
Small Business 5...................... Entry Level............. 221,400 23,980,000 <1
Small Business 6...................... Entry Level............. 336,800 107,350,000 <1
Small Business 7...................... Premium................. 2,227,050 2,730,000 27
Small Business 8...................... Premium................. 4,021,200 5,000,000 27
Small Business 9...................... Premium................. 3,612,600 8,800,000 14
Small Business 10..................... Premium................. 2,784,800 7,990,000 12
Small Business 11..................... Premium................. 2,830,500 8,648,000 11
Small Business 12..................... Premium................. 2,338,600 10,970,000 7
Small Business 13..................... Premium................. 5,685,100 32,600,000 6
Small Business 14..................... Premium................. 2,450,150 19,800,000 4
Small Business 15..................... Premium................. 2,561,700 23,730,000 4
-----------------------------------------------
Average Small Business................ 2,099,380 23,421,867 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on Table VI.3 there are two premium small businesses
manufacturers that could be significantly impacted by this proposed
rulemaking, if finalized as proposed.
DOE requests comment on its findings that there are 15 domestic
small businesses that manufacture conventional cooking products and its
estimate of the potential impacts on these small businesses.
Additionally, DOE requests comment on the potential for any small
businesses to exit the consumer conventional cooking products market in
response to the proposed energy conservation standards.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small
businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by
TSL 2. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined
energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels. DOE
estimates that manufacturers, including small businesses, would have to
spend approximately 43 percent less conversion costs at TSL 1 compared
to TSL 2. While TSL 1 would reduce the impacts on small business
manufacturers, it would come at the expense of a reduction in energy
savings and consumer savings. TSL 1 achieves 39 percent lower energy
savings compared to the energy savings at TSL 2. Additionally, TSL 1
achieves 44 percent lower consumer NPV at 3 percent and 49 percent
lower consumer NPV at 7 percent compared to the consumer NPV achieved
at TSL 2.
Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 2
balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 2 with the potential
burdens placed on consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers,
including small business manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does not
propose one of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, or the other
policy alternatives examined as part of the regulatory impact analysis
and included in chapter 17 of the TSD for this SNOPR.
DOE seeks comment on the policy alternatives presented in the
regulatory impact analysis and data that can be used to estimate the
manufacturer response to Federal credits.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally,
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (``PRA''), a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless that
[[Page 6899]]
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control
Number.
OMB Control Number 1910-1400, Compliance Statement Energy/Water
Conservation Standards for Appliances, is currently valid and assigned
to the certification reporting requirements applicable to covered
equipment, including consumer conventional cooking products.
DOE's certification and compliance activities ensure accurate and
comprehensive information about the energy and water use
characteristics of covered products and covered equipment sold in the
United States. Manufacturers of all covered products and covered
equipment must submit a certification report before a basic model is
distributed in commerce, annually thereafter, and if the basic model is
redesigned in such a manner to increase the consumption or decrease the
efficiency of the basic model such that the certified rating is no
longer supported by the test data. Additionally, manufacturers must
report when production of a basic model has ceased and is no longer
offered for sale as part of the next annual certification report
following such cessation. DOE requires the manufacturer of any covered
product or covered equipment to establish, maintain, and retain the
records of certification reports, of the underlying test data for all
certification testing, and of any other testing conducted to satisfy
the requirements of part 429, part 430, and/or part 431. Certification
reports provide DOE and consumers with comprehensive, up-to date
efficiency information and support effective enforcement.
Revised certification data would be required for gas cooking tops
and conventional gas ovens were this SNOPR to be finalized as proposed.
New certification data would be required for electric cooking tops and
conventional electric ovens were this SNOPR to be finalized as
proposed. However, DOE is not proposing new or amended certification or
reporting requirements for consumer conventional cooking products in
this SNOPR. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to establish
certification requirements and reporting for consumer conventional
cooking products under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and
equipment certification. DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number
1910-1400 at that time, as necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment.
10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this
rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a
rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer
products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in
categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances
exist that require further environmental analysis, and it otherwise
meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See
10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the
final rule.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297)
Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the
relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Pub. L. 104-4, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
[[Page 6900]]
The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate,''
and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for
timely input to potentially affected small governments before
establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely
affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on
its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820.
DOE's policy statement is also available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
Although this proposed rule does not contain a Federal
intergovernmental mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million
or more in any one year by the private sector. Such expenditures may
include: (1) investment in research and development and in capital
expenditures by consumer conventional cooking products manufacturers in
the years between the final rule and the compliance date for the new
standards and (2) incremental additional expenditures by consumers to
purchase higher-efficiency consumer conventional cooking products,
starting at the compliance date for the applicable standard.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that
accompanies the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this SNOPR and the TSD for this
proposed rule respond to those requirements.
Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is
required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes
an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an
alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(m),
this proposed rule would establish new and amended energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking products that are designed
to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has
determined to be both technologically feasible and economically
justified, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE
is presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for this proposed rule.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in
any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this SNOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which
proposes new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products, is not a significant energy action
because the proposed standards are not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has
it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on this proposed
rule.
L. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan.
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared
[[Page 6901]]
a report describing that peer review.\123\ Generation of this report
involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using objective
criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a judgment as
to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated
results, and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs
and/or projects. Because available data, models, and technological
understanding have changed since 2007, DOE has engaged with the
National Academy of Sciences to review DOE's analytical methodologies
to ascertain whether modifications are needed to improve the
Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of evaluating the
resulting report.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer
Review Report'' is available at the following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed July 1, 2022).
\124\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on
DOE's website at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=34. Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
document, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that
has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an
oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to
[email protected]. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes
the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they
wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone
number where they can be reached.
DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before
the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot
supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those
persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building
Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion.
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing,
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6306) A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings
and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order
of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct
of the webinar. There shall not be discussion of proprietary
information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters
regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar and until the end
of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments
on the proceedings, as well as on any aspect of the rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this
rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by participants,
and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues
affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a
general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the
discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The
official conducting the webinar/public meeting will accept additional
comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or
modification of the previous procedures that may be needed for the
proper conduct of the webinar.
A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of
this document and will be accessible on the DOE website. In addition,
any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing
reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
[[Page 6902]]
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for portable
conventional cooking top and DOE's proposal to include portable
conventional cooking tops in the existing product classes. DOE also
seeks data and information on its initial determination not to
differentiate conventional cooking tops on the basis of portability
when considering product classes for this SNOPR analysis.
(2) DOE seeks comment on the impacts of downdraft venting systems
on energy consumption and associated data about such impacts. DOE
further requests comment on its proposal to not include the energy
consumption of any downdraft venting system in the energy conservation
standards for conventional cooking tops.
(3) DOE requests comment on its proposed tested configuration and
determination of representative IAEC for single-zone non-portable
cooking tops.
(4) DOE requests comment on its proposal to not define ``basic
model'' with respect to cooking products or cooking tops, and on
possible definitions for ``basic model'' with respect to cooking
products or cooking tops that could be used if DOE were to determine
such a definition is necessary.
(5) DOE welcomes data on the consumer usage patterns of pyrolytic
versus non-pyrolytic self-cleaning functions in conventional ovens, and
requests comment on its preliminary determination that self-cleaning
technologies do not warrant separate product class considerations.
(6) DOE seeks comment on the product classes evaluated in this
SNOPR.
(7) DOE seeks comment on any existing technologies that improve the
efficiency of electric open (coil) element cooking tops.
(8) DOE requests information on the potential energy savings
associated with intermittent pilot ignition systems.
(9) DOE requests comment on the magnitude of potential energy
savings that could result from the use of a reduced air gap as a
technology option.
(10) DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional
electric cooking tops and whether any additional technology options
should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in
this SNOPR.
(11) DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional
gas cooking tops and whether any additional technology options should
be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in this
SNOPR.
(12) DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional
ovens and whether any additional technology options should be screened
out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in this SNOPR.
(13) DOE seeks comment on the retained design options for consumer
conventional cooking products.
(14) DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the
proposed baseline efficiency levels for conventional cooking tops.
(15) DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the
proposed incremental efficiency levels for electric cooking tops.
(16) DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the
proposed incremental efficiency levels for gas cooking tops.
(17) DOE seeks comment on the definitions of the proposed
efficiency level for conventional ovens.
(18) DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results for the
estimated energy use of each proposed efficiency level for conventional
ovens.
(19) DOE seeks comment on the manufacturer production costs for
consumer conventional cooking products used in this analysis.
(20) DOE requests comment on data and information on how the
pandemic has changed consumer cooking behavior and product usage.
(21) DOE seeks feedback and comment on its estimate for repair
costs for consumer conventional cooking products.
(22) DOE requests comment and additional data on its estimates for
the lifetime distribution.
(23) DOE requests comment and feedback on its efficiency assignment
in the LCC analysis.
(24) DOE seeks comment and feedback on its estimate for the no-new-
standards case efficiency distribution.
(25) DOE seeks comment on the distribution between electric and gas
cooking products over the shipments analysis period and the potential
for
[[Page 6903]]
fuel switching between electric and gas cooking products. Specifically,
DOE requests data on existing policy incentives for consumers to switch
fuels and data that indicates the number of consumers switching fuel
types between electric and gas cooking products.
(26) DOE requests data on the market size and typical selling price
of units sold through the second-hand market for cooking products.
(27) DOE welcomes input on the effect of new and amended standards
on impacts across products within the same fuel class and equipment
type.
(28) DOE seeks comment on the general approach to its shipments
methodology.
(29) DOE seeks feedback on its assumption of no rebound effect
associated with the use of more efficient conventional cooking products
as a result of a standard.
(30) DOE requests comment on whether additional consumer subgroups,
including any disaggregation of the subgroups analyzed in this SNOPR,
may be disproportionately affected by a new or amended national
standard and warrant additional analysis in the final rule.
(31) DOE requests comment on the use of 9.1 percent as an
appropriate real discount rate for consumer conventional cooking
product manufacturers.
(32) DOE seeks comment on any health impacts to consumers,
environmental impacts, or general public health and welfare impacts
(including the distribution of such impacts across sensitive
populations) of its proposals in this SNOPR on on-site emissions from
gas cooking products of methane, carbon dioxide, particulate matter,
nitrogen dioxide, or other hazardous air emissions. DOE also seeks
comment on whether manufacturers are instituting design approaches,
control strategies, or other measures to mitigate methane or other
emissions from incomplete combustion and leakage.
(33) DOE requests comment on the estimated potential domestic
employment impacts on consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers presented in this SNOPR.
(34) DOE requests comment on the potential manufacturing capacity
constraints placed on consumer conventional cooking product
manufacturers at the TSLs presented in this SNOPR.
(35) DOE requests comment on the potential impacts on commercial-
style manufacturers at the TSLs presented in this SNOPR.
(36) DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative
regulatory burden on manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking
products associated with multiple DOE standards or product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies.
(37) DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive
impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition,
stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding
these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for information to
send comments to DOJ.
(38) DOE seeks comment on any impacts of its proposals in this
SNOPR on indoor air pollutants released by gas cooking products, as
well as any other design approaches, control strategies, or other
measures to mitigate these emissions.
(39) DOE welcomes data submissions and comments that will provide
for a fuller assessment of the potential impact of energy conservation
standards on consumer choice and how to quantify this impact in its
regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
(40) DOE seeks comment and data to potentially re-evaluate the
sampling plan for cooking tops in the context of any potential
performance standards for these products.
(41) DOE requests comment on its findings that there are 15
domestic small businesses that manufacture conventional cooking
products and its estimate of the potential impacts on these small
businesses. Additionally, DOE requests comment on the potential for any
small businesses to exit the consumer conventional cooking products
market in response to the proposed energy conservation standards.
(42) DOE seeks comment on the policy alternatives presented in the
regulatory impact analysis and data that can be used to estimate the
manufacturer response to Federal credits.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in
this document.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Small businesses.
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December
23, 2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on January 10, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
parts 429 and 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 429.23 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.23 Cooking products.
(a) Determination of represented values. Manufacturers must
determine the represented values, which include the certified ratings,
for each basic model of cooking product by testing, in conjunction with
the applicable sampling provisions.
(1) Sampling plan for selection of units for testing. (i) The
requirements of
[[Page 6904]]
Sec. 429.11 are applicable to cooking products; and
(ii) For each basic model of cooking product, a sample of
sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that
any represented value of estimated annual operating cost, standby mode
power consumption, off mode power consumption, annual energy
consumption, integrated annual energy consumption, or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(A) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE23.000
and x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample; Or,
(B) The upper 97\1/2\ percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true
mean divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE23.001
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.975 is the t statistic for a
97.5% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
appendix A).
(2) Product-specific provisions for determination of represented
values. (i) Non-portable conventional cooking tops with a single
cooking zone.
(A) Representations for a basic model must be based on the tested
configuration. For the purpose of this paragraph (a)(2)(i), the
``tested configuration'' means:
(1) The non-portable conventional cooking top unit containing the
single cooking zone, and
(2) If commercially available from the same manufacturer, the non-
portable conventional cooking top unit that has similar design
characteristics (e.g., construction materials, user interface) as the
non-portable conventional cooking top containing the single cooking
zone, but that contains two cooking zones that are within the same
product class and use the same heating technology (i.e., gas flame,
electric resistive heating, or electric inductive heating) and energy
source (e.g., voltage, gas type) as the non-portable conventional
cooking top containing the single cooking zone. If more than one such
comparable unit with two cooking zones is commercially available from
the same manufacturer, the least energy consumptive of those units with
two cooking zones shall be included in the tested configuration. If no
such comparable unit with two cooking zones is commercially available
from the same manufacturer, the tested configuration shall be only the
non-portable conventional cooking top unit containing the single
cooking zone.
(B) Determination of the represented value of integrated annual
energy consumption (IAEC) of the tested configuration of a non-portable
conventional cooking top with a single cooking zone.
(1) If the tested configuration includes a comparable non-portable
conventional cooking top unit containing two cooking zones, the
represented value of IAEC is calculated as follows:
IAEC = \1/3\ x IAECsingle x \2/3\ x IAECdouble
Where:
IAECsingle is the IAEC for the non-portable conventional
cooking top unit containing the single cooking zone included in the
tested configuration as determined in Sec. 430.23(i)(2) of this
chapter; and
IAECdouble is the IAEC for the comparable non-portable
conventional cooking top unit containing two cooking zones included
in the tested configuration as determined in Sec. 430.23(i)(2) of
this chapter.
(2) If the tested configuration includes only the non-portable
conventional cooking top unit containing the single cooking zone, the
represented value of IAEC is equal to that cooking top's IAEC as
determined in Sec. 430.23(i)(2) of this chapter.
* * * * *
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
3. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
4. Amend Sec. 430.2 by adding in alphabetical order, the definition of
``Portable conventional cooking top'' to read as follows:
Sec. 430.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Portable conventional cooking top means a conventional cooking top
designed to be moved place to place.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 430.32 by revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their
compliance dates.
* * * * *
(j) Cooking Products. (1) The control system of a conventional oven
shall:
(i) Not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light for gas
ovens manufactured on or after April 9, 2012; and
(ii) Not be equipped with a linear power supply for electric and
gas ovens manufactured on or after [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) Conventional cooking tops manufactured on or after [DATE 3
YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]
shall have an integrated annual energy consumption, excluding any
downdraft venting system energy consumption, no greater than:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
integrated
annual energy
Product class consumption
(IAEC) (kWh/
year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Electric Cooking Tops--Open (Coil) Elements......... 199
(ii) Electric Cooking Tops--Smooth Elements............. 207
(iii) Gas Cooking Tops.................................. 1,204
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-00610 Filed 1-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
