Energy Conservation Standards forResidential Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Productsand Commercial Clothes WashersNotice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)Public MeetingBuilding Technologies ProgramOffice of Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyU.S. Department of EnergyNovember 13, 2008http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/2Purposes•To invite comment on the proposed energy conservation standard level TSL 1 forconventional cooking products,TSL 3b for microwave ovens,and TSL 3 for commercialclothes washers and torequest recommendations for alternatives.•To present methodologiesand characterize results for this rulemaking analyses;•To discuss specific issuesrelated to each analysis;•To seek input from interestedparties on methodologies, assumptions, data sources, andresults from the analyses; and•To describe the next steps.Comments from Participants•Participants are invited to provide summary comments or statements;•Participants are invited toraise additional issuesfor discussion today; and•NOPR comment period closes December 16, 2008.Purpose of the Public Meeting andComments From ParticipantsOverview3Statutory Authority – the Energy Policy andConservation Act (EPCA) as amendedThe Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) amendedEPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10),(cc)) to prescribe standards for dishwashersand dehumidifiers, so DOE is notproposing standards for theseproducts.The proposed notice addresses the requirements of the following, underwhich DOE is required to publish a NOPR addressing energyconservation standards for residential electric and gas kitchen rangesand ovens, residential microwave ovens, and commercial clotheswashers by September 30, 2008.•DOE’s Report to Congress, which was prepared in response to section 141(a) of theEnergy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) and section 305 of EISA.•The Consolidated Consent Decree inNew York v. Bodman. No. 05 Civ. 7807(S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 7, 2005) andNatural Resources Defense Council v. Bodman(No. 05 Civ. 7808 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 7, 2005).Overview4DOE Actions on Residential Cooking Products andCommercial Clothes WashersTest Procedures•Final Rule for residential cooking products published on October 3, 1997, which madeseveral revisions to more accurately measure efficiency. 62 FR 51976.•Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), proposing standby power test methods formicrowave ovens, published inthe Federal Register on October 17, 2008.73 FR 62134.•Final Rule for CCWs, whichadopted the EPACT 2005 amendmentsto EPCA requiring thatCCWs be rated according to the residential clothes washertest procedure, published onOctober 18, 2005.70 FR 60407, 60416.Energy Conservation Standards•Notice of availability ofthe Framework Document publishedMarch 27, 2006. 71 FR 15059.•Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking (ANOPR) published November15, 2007. 72 FR64432.•Technical SupportDocument (TSD) posted on DOE website.•Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(NOPR) published in the Federal Register on October 17,2008. 73 FR 62034.– Issued by DOE on September 30, 2008.– Available to stakeholders for review approximately a month prior to the public meeting.•Final Rule scheduled for March 2009.Overview5EPCA directs DOE to consider seven factors when settingenergy conservation standardsFactorAnalysis1. Economic impact on consumersand manufacturersLife-cycle cost analysisManufacturer impact analysis2. Lifetime operating cost savings Life-cycle cost analysis3. Total projected energy savings National impact analysis4. Impact on utility or performance Screening analysisEngineering analysis5. Impact of any lessening ofcompetitionManufacturer impact analysis6. Need for national energyconservationNational impact analysis7. Other factors the Secretaryconsiders relevantEnvironmental assessmentUtility impact analysisEmployment impact analysisOverviewSelection of Proposed Standards – Conventional CookingProductsDOE considered four trial standard levels (TSLs), beginning with the mostefficient level (TSL 4) and worked down to a level where the benefits ofpotential standards outweighed the burdens.•DOE tentatively concludes thatat TSL 4, the benefits ofenergy savings and emissionsreductions would be outweighed by the potential multi-million dollar negative neteconomic cost to the Nation,the economic burden on consumers, and thelarge capitalconversion costs that could result•DOE tentatively concludes thatat TSL 3 and TSL 2, the benefits of energy savings andemissions reductions would still be outweighed by the economic burden on consumersand the adverse impactson manufacturers’ INPV.•At TSL 1, only amended energy conservation standardsconsisting of prescriptiverequirements to eliminate standing pilots for gas cooktopsand gas standard ovens wouldbe promulgated by DOE. DOE tentatively concludes thatTSL 1 saves a significantamount of energy and is technologically feasible andeconomically justified.DOE requests comments on whether it should adopt TSL 1 or some othermix of efficiency levels for the conventional cooking product classes.Proposed Standard67Proposed StandardProposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards forConventional Cooking Products (TSL 1)No StandardElectric Oven/Self-Clean OvenNo StandardElectric Oven/Standard Oven with or without aCatalytic LineNo Change to Existing StandardGas Oven/Self-Clean OvenNo Constant Burning PilotLightsGas Oven/Standard Ovenwith or without aCatalytic LineNo StandardElectric Cooktop/Smooth ElementsNo StandardElectric Cooktop/Low or High Wattage Open(Coil) ElementsNo Constant Burning PilotLightsGas Cooktop/Conventional BurnersProposed Energy ConservationStandardsProduct ClassSelection of Proposed Standard – Microwave OvensDOE considered four TSLs each for energyfactor and standby power, beginning withthe most efficient levels (TSL 4a for energyfactor and TSL 4b for standby power) andworked down to a level where the benefitsof potential standards outweighed theburdens.•DOE tentatively concludes that atTSL 4a to TSL 1a forenergy factor, the benefits of energy savingsand emissions reductions would beoutweighed by the potential multi-million to multi-billion dollarnegative net economic costto the Nation, the economic burden on consumers,and the large capitalconversion costs that could result. DOE tentatively concludes thatnone of the TSLsfor microwaveoven cooking efficiency are economically justified.Therefore, DOE proposes no standards formicrowave oven cooking efficiency or energy factor.•DOE tentatively concludes that atTSL 4b for standby power, the benefits of energy savings, economicgain, and emissions reductions would be outweighed by the potential economic burdenon consumersfrom loss of product utility andthe large capital conversion costs that would resultin a reduction in INPVfor manufacturers.•DOE tentatively concludes that TSL 3b for standby power saves a significant amountof energy and istechnologically feasibleand economically justified.DOE requests comments on whether it shouldadopt TSL 3b or some other standbypower level for microwave ovens, and whetherit should adopt some efficiency level forenergy factor.Proposed Standard89Proposed StandardProposed Amended Energy Conservation Standard for MicrowaveOven Standby Power (TSL 3b)Maximum Standby Power = 1.0wattMicrowave Ovens with or without ThermalElementsProposed Energy ConservationStandardsProduct ClassSelection of Proposed Standards – Commercial ClothesWashersDOE considered five trial standardlevels (TSLs), beginning with the mostefficient level (TSL 5) and worked down to a level where the benefits ofpotential standards outweighed the burdens.•DOE tentatively concludes thatat TSL 5 and TSL 4, thebenefits of energy savings,economic benefits, and emissions reductions would be outweighed by the potential fordisincentivizing consumers topurchase high-efficiency front-loading CCWs and the largecapital conversion costs thatcould result in a substantial reduction in manufacturers’ INPV.•DOE tentatively concludes that TSL 3 saves a significantamount of energy and istechnologically feasibleand economically justified.•At TSL 3, DOE recognizes thepotential adverse impacts tothe LVM and the likelihood thatadverse impacts may be significant for CCW market competition. Therefore, DOE willcarefully consider the Department of Justice’s review ofthe proposed standards for CCWsbefore issuing its final rule for this product.DOE requests comments on whether it should adopt TSL 3 or some other mixof efficiency levels for the commercial clothes washer product classes.Proposed Standard1011Proposed StandardProposed Amended Energy Conservation Standard for CommercialClothes Washers (TSL 3)2.00 Modified Energy Factor/5.5 Water FactorFront-Loading1.76 Modified Energy Factor/8.3 Water FactorTop-LoadingProposed Energy Conservation StandardsProduct Class12Opening Remarks•At this time, DOE welcomes opening remarks from interested parties on theNOPR for residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products andcommercial clothes washers.Opening Remarks and Comments from InterestedParties on the Proposed Energy Conservation StandardsOpening Remarks and Comment13Summary of Issues on which DOEseeks comment - NOPR issues #1-7Issues for Public Comment1.The proposed standards for residential gas kitchen ranges and ovens, microwave ovens, andCCWs, as well as the proposed“no-standard” standard forresidential electric kitchen rangesand ovens other thanmicrowave ovens;2.Battery-powered spark ignitionmodules as a viable alternative to standing pilots;3.The preliminary determination ofthe technical infeasibility ofincorporating microwave ovencooking efficiency with standby mode andoff mode power intoa single metric4.Input and data regarding off mode power for microwave ovens;5.Input and data on the utility provided by specific features thatcontribute to microwave ovenstandby power, particularly theutility of display technologies and cookingsensors that do notrequire standby power;6.Input and data on control strategies availableto allow manufacturers tomake design tradeoffsbetween incorporating standby-power-consuming features suchas displays or cookingsensors and including a functionto turn power off to thesecomponents duringstandby mode;also, the viability and cost ofmicrowave oven control board circuitry that could accommodatetransistors to switch offcooking sensors and displays.7.Whether switching or similar modern powersupplies can operate successfully inside amicrowave oven and the associatedefficiency impacts on standby power.14Summary of Issues on which DOEseeks comment - NOPR issues #8-12Issues for Public Comment8.The selection of microwave ovenstandby power efficiency levels for the engineering analysis;9.Input and data on the estimated incremental manufacturingcosts, as well as approaches toachieve each standby level formicrowave ovens; also, whether there are any intellectualproperty or patent infringementissues associated with the design options presented in theTechnical Support Document (TSD) to achieve each standby level;10.Input and data on the estimated market share of microwaveovens at different standby powerconsumption levels;11.The appropriateness of using other discount rates in addition to seven percent and threepercent to discount fromfuture emissions reductions.12.The determination of the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposedrule, particularlythe method for valuing the expected CO2 and NOx emissionssavings due to the proposedstandards.Proposed Standards(Issue #1)15Issues for Public CommentDOE invites comments on the proposed standards for residential gaskitchen ranges and ovens, microwave ovens, and CCWs, as well as theproposed “no-standard” standard for residential electric kitchen rangesand ovens other than microwave ovens.16NOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisReviseANOPRAnalysesTrialStandardLevelsConsumerSubgroupAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysisPurpose•To characterize manufacturer cost-efficiency relationships for higher efficiency products andequipment.•To evaluate design options that improve efficiency relative to the baseline units.•Sensitivity analysis to lookat current material prices.Product classes analyzed•All residential cooking product andCCW product classes were analyzed.Design-option approach for residential cooking products•DOE updated the cost-efficiency curves from the 1996 TSD for conventional cookingproducts and microwave ovens (energy factor) by the Producer Price Index (PPI).•DOE analytically derived therelationship betweenmicrowave oven costand standby level.Efficiency-level approach for commercial clothes washers•Industry supplied cost-efficiency data for two efficiencylevels abovethe baseline.•DOE analytically supplemented andvalidated this data to extend the cost-efficiency curvesover all efficiency levelsfor both product classes.Engineering AnalysisEngineering Analysis1718Gas Cooking Product Ignition Systems(Issue #2)There is currently a prescriptive standard prohibiting constant burningpilots on gas ranges and ovens that are equipped with an electricalsupply cord.The proposed cooking product standard would eliminate standing pilotson all gas cooking products.DOE has tentatively identified battery-powered spark ignition systems asa viable alternative:•Battery-powered ignition systems are available on other products such asinstantaneous gas water heaters, barbecues, and furnaces.•Such systems appear to meet safety standards of ANSI Z21.1Engineering AnalysisDOE invites comments on the viability of battery-powered spark ignitionmodules as an alternative to standing pilot ignition systems.19Technical Infeasibility of Incorporating Standby Power andOff Mode Power into Microwave Oven Energy Descriptor(Issue #3)DOE and AHAM data showed no correlation between cooking efficiency and anyknown feature such as output power or cavity size.Test-to-test variability in cooking efficiency was several EF percentage points,compared to a total range inthe test sample of 55-62%.DOE found that combining the per-cyclemeasurement of EF, measured over aperiod of seconds, with standby and off mode energy consumption, measured overmultiple hours, is not representative ofthe energy efficiency of the microwave ovenover either a very shortor extended period of time.DOE believes that, while mathematically possible, it would be technically infeasible toincorporate two disparate and largely incompatible metrics of similar magnitudes (EFand standby power) into a combined energy efficiency metric that produces ameaningful result.Engineering AnalysisDOE invites comments on the preliminary determination of the technicalinfeasibility of incorporating microwave oven cooking efficiency withstandby mode and off mode power into a single metric.20Microwave Oven Off Mode Power(Issue #4)“Standby mode” is defined as “the condition in which an energy-using product –•(I) is connected to amain power source; and•(II) offers 1 or more ofthe following user-oriented or protective functions:– (aa) To facilitate the activation or deactivation of other functions (includingactive mode) by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, ortimer.– (bb) Continuous functions, including information or statusdisplays (includingclocks) or sensor-based functions.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii))“Off mode” is defined as “the conditionin which an energy-using product –•(I) is connected to amain power source; and•(II) is not providing any standby modeor active mode function.” (42 U.S.C.6295(gg)(1)(A)(ii))DOE observed no off mode powerconsumption in its test sample of microwave ovens.DOE’s research suggests that no microwave ovens available in the United Statesconsume energy in an off mode.Engineering AnalysisDOE invites comments on, and input and data regarding, off mode powerfor microwave ovens.21Utility of Microwave Oven Features that Contribute toStandby Power (Issue #5)Cooking Sensors•Typically consume 1-2 W and require several minutes for warm-up•DOE has identified several types of zero-standby-power sensors,at least one of which DOEbelieves has zero incremental cost and is being developed for microwave oven applications.Display Technologies•Light-Emitting Diode (LED)•Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) with or without backlighting•Vacuum Fluorescent Display (VFD)Power Supplies and Control Board Options•Upgraded power supply components•Lower-power components•Switching power suppliesEngineering AnalysisDOE invites comments on, and input and data regarding, the utilityprovided by specific features that contribute to microwave oven standbypower, particularly display technologies and cooking sensors that do notrequire standby power.22Microwave Oven Automatic Power-Down Function(Issue #6)Very low (less than 1 W) standby power levels could be met according tothe EISA 2007 and IEC 62301 definitions of “standby mode” byincorporating an automatic function that turns off most power-consumingcomponents once a period of inactivity has elapsed.DOE has determined a large number of microwave ovens in other markets,such as Japan, implement this feature.Engineering AnalysisDOE invites comments on, and input and data regarding, controlstrategies available to allow manufacturers to make design tradeoffsbetween incorporating standby-power-consuming features such asdisplays or cooking sensors and including a function to turn power off tothese components during standby mode; also, the viability and cost ofmicrowave oven control board circuitry that could accommodatetransistors to switch off cooking sensors and displays.23Microwave Oven Power Supplies(Issue #7)Switching power supplies offer the highest conversion efficiencies (up to 75percent) and lowest no-load standby losses (0.2 W or less).They also have higher cost, higher part count, and greater complexity.Switching power supplies are as-yet unproven in long-term microwave ovenapplications, and the greater complexity of these power supplies may alsolower overall reliability.Engineering AnalysisDOE invites comments on whether switching or similar modern powersupplies can operate successfully inside a microwave oven and theassociated efficiency impacts on standby power.24Microwave Oven Standby Power Levels(Issue #8)Engineering AnalysisDOE invites comments on the selection of microwave oven standby powerlevels for the engineering analysis.0.02Max-Tech41.0IEA 1-Watt Program31.5Gap Fill22.0FEMP Procurement EfficiencyRecommendation14.0BaselineBaselineStandby Power(W)Standby Level SourceStandbyLevel25Microwave Oven Cost versus Standby Power(Issue #9)Engineering AnalysisDOE invites comments on, and input and data regarding, the estimatedincremental manufacturing costs, as well as approaches to achieve eachstandby level for microwave ovens; also, whether there are anyintellectual property or patent infringement issues associated with thedesign options presented in the Technical Support Document (TSD) toachieve each standby level.•Auto power-down for all display technologies•Level 2 +•Upgraded relays or switching power supply for LED•Upgraded relays + switching power supply for backlit LCD•Auto power-down for VFD•Level 1 +•Upgraded power supply for LED•Upgraded relays for VFD•Zero-standby cooking sensor•Upgraded power supply for backlit LCD and VFD•Cooking sensor + any display technologyApproach$ 5.134$ 1.473$ 0.672$ 0.301NABaselineIncremental CostStandby LevelRequest for Additional Comments26Public CommentDOE invites comments on any other issues pertaining to theEngineering Analysis.27NOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisReviseANOPRAnalysesTrialStandardLevelsConsumerSubgroupAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEnergy Use Characterization•To develop energy (and water) consumption savings estimates for selectedproduct efficiency levels.Markups for Equipment Price Determination•To characterize the channels for howequipment is distributed from themanufacturer to the customer.•To determine prices paid by customersbased on manufacturer selling pricesfor baseline and higherefficiency equipment.Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses•To develop the customer life-cycle cost savings and payback period for higherefficiency equipment.Purpose2829ApproachConventional Cooking Products•Annual energy use has beenin decline since 1970s.•2004 California Residential Appliance Saturation Survey and Florida SolarEnergy Center used toestimate annual energy use.Microwave Ovens•Annual energy use has been relativelysteady since the late 1980s.•2004 California Residential Appliance Saturation Surveyused to estimateannual energy use.Commercial Clothes Washers•Based on per-cycle energy and water usemultiplied by the cycles per year.•Number of cycles per yearbased on various studies.– Multi-Family: Average = 3.4; Range = 1 to 10.9.– Laundromats: Average = 6; Range = 3 to 8.Energy Use Characterization30Distribution Channels, Inputs and ResultsMarkups to Determine Equipment PriceConventional Cooking Products and Microwave Ovens•Based on AHAM Fact Book; Over 93 percent of sales through retail outlets.•Markups estimated assuming all products purchased from retail outlets.•Overall baseline markup = 1.95; overall incremental markup = 1.55.Commercial Clothes Washers•Based on data from CEE, overwhelming majorityof products sold through distributors orroute operators.– Laundromats generally purchase product through distributors.– Multi-family housing and large institutions generally lease equipment through route operators.•Based markup calculations only on the distribution channel involving distributors.– Assumed resulting equipment prices would be representative of prices paid by consumersacquiring equipment from route operators.•Overall baseline markup = 1.93; overall incremental markup = 1.59.ManufacturerRetailerConsumerManufacturerDistributorLaundromatRoute OperatorMulti-FamilyHousingConsumer31LCC equals consumer price plus the sum of operating costs discounted to aparticular base year.Economic evaluation from the customer perspective.Analysis implemented in an Excel®spreadsheet combined with Crystal Ball®.Analysis models the uncertainty and variability of inputs using Monte Carlosimulation and probability distributions.•For the residential products, household samples created from 2001Residential EnergyConsumption Survey to characterize the variability in energy use and/or energy.Results are expressed as LCC savings (baseline minus standard level).Simple payback period (in years) is also calculated and reported in thisanalysis.Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysesApproachCombine Changesin CostsLCC ResultsInstalled Cost(Customer Price + Installation Cost)Operating ExpensesConvertto PresentValue32Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysesElectricity Prices•Based on EIA Form 861 Data.•Developed for 13 Regions: 9 Census Divisions and 4 Large States.Natural Gas Prices•Based on data from EIA’sNatural Gas Monthly.•Developed for 13 Regions: 9 Census Divisions and 4 Large States.Water and Wastewater Prices•Based on data from Raftelis Consultants and AWWA.•Developed for 4 Census Regions due to data limitations.Energy Price Forecasts•Based on 2008 Annual Energy Outlook.Water and Wastewater Price Forecasts•Projections from 1970-2006 based on CPI national water price index (U.S. cityaverage).•Price projections to 2042 based onaverage growth rate from 1970-2006.Energy and Water Prices33Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysesConventional Cooking Products•Installation Cost: Base cost = $146 based on RS Means.– Additional installation cost forinstalling an electrical outletfor gas cooking products that donot use electricity.– National Electrical Code indicatesthat only pre-1960homes need outlet.~55% of RECS household sample with gascooktops and standard ovens are pre-1960.– RS Means estimate forinstalling GFCI outletwith grounding = $235.– Weighted average installation cost = $130.– Only gas standard (non-self-cleaning) ranges are sold withstanding pilots; installation costshared equally by gas cooktop andgas standard oven installations.•Repair and Maintenance Costs: Determined only for gas cooking products and basedon type of ignition system.– Standing Pilot: One-time$126 cost in the 10thyear of product’s life.– Glo-bar/hot surface:$147 cost every 5thyear of product’s life.– Electronic spark: One-time $178 costin the 10thyear of product’s life.Microwave Ovens•No installation costs; No maintenance costs.Commercial Clothes Washers•Installation Cost: Base cost = $186 based on RS Means.•Repair and Maintenance Costs: Annualized cost a function of1⁄2 consumer equipmentprice divided by product lifetime.Installation, Repair and Maintenance Costs34Discount Rates and Product LifetimeLife-Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysesDiscount Rates•Based on the finance cost of raising funds to purchase appliances.– Financial cost of any debtincurred to purchase equipment.– Opportunity cost of any equity used to purchase equipment.•Residential Conventional Cooking Products and Microwave Ovens– New Housing = Average real mortgage rate =3.2%.– Replacements = Weighted-average real rate associated with various household equity (e.g., savingsbonds, stocks, CDs) and debt (e.g., credit card,home equity loans) =5.5%.– Primary data source:Federal Reserve Board’sSurvey of Consumer Financesfor the years 1989,1992, 1995, 1998,2001, and 2004.•Commercial Clothes Washers– Calculated from the weighted-averagecost of capital to the firm (WACC) to obtainequity and debtfinancing.– Weighted-average real value =5.7%for purchasers of commercial clothes washers.Product Lifetime•Based on various sources includingAppliancemagazine and past DOE TSDs.•Conventional Cooking Products: Min = 10 (elec), 12 (gas); Average = 19;Max = 28 (elec), 26 (gas).•Microwave Ovens: Min= 7; Average = 9; Max = 10.•Commercial CW: Min = 7 (MF), 5(Laund); Avg = 11.3 (MF), 7.1 (Laund); Max = 15.5 (MF), 9.3 (Laund).•All product lifetimes characterized with Weibull distribution.Equipment Assignment in the Base Case8.2%0.05831a*0%0.060060%0.059650%0.059340%0.057230%0.056620%0.420274.2%0.05361*93.2%0.399117.6%0.0298Baseline6.8%0.156BaselineMarket ShareEFLevelMarket ShareEFLevelGas Standard OvensGas CooktopsFront-LoadingTop-Loading1.5%5.102.2033.0%8.301.7630.0%33.3%63.6%Market Share8.509.509.50WF1.601.421.26MEF21BaselineLevel1.5%4.402.35485.3%5.502.0024.4%7.501.8017.4%8.001.72BaselineMarket ShareWFMEFLevelLife-Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysesConventional Cooking ProductsCommercial Clothes WashersBased on historicaldata provided byAHAM.Electric coil and smooth cooktops,Electric standard and self-clean ovens,Gas self-clean ovens, and Microwaveovens assumed to have 100% of marketat baseline levels.Based on distribution of modelsreported in CEC database.0%4.00.6024a0%4.00.5973a0%4.00.5882a0%4.00.5861a0%0.020.5574b0%1.00.5573b19.2%1.50.5572b34.6%2.00.5571b46.2%4.00.557BaselineMarket ShareStandby Power (WP)EFLevelMicrowave OvensBased on distributionof standby powerconsumption of 52tested units byAHAM and DOE.35Avoids overstating the benefits from increasingproduct efficiency by showing the percentageof consumers already purchasing efficient products.36Issues for which DOE seeks comments(Issue #10)DOE seeks input and data on the estimated market share of microwaveovens at different standby power consumption levels.Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysesDOE estimated the market share of microwave ovens at different standbypower consumption levels on a limited set of tested units.A different set of market shares could affect the percent of consumersbenefiting from a standard that limits standby power.37Life-Cycle Cost Analysis ResultsConventional Gas Cooking ProductsAverage LCC Savings vs. Installed Cost($90)($75)($60)($45)($30)($15)$0$15$300 $325 $350 $375 $400 $425 $450 $475 $500 $525Installed Cost

Average LCC SavingsBaselineLevel 1a(Spark Ignition)Level 1(Globar Ignition)Level 2 Level 3Level 4 Level 5Level 6BaselineLevel 1 (Spark Ignition)Level 2Gas CookotpsGas Standard Ovens38Life-Cycle Cost Analysis ResultsMicrowave OvensAverage LCC Savings vs. Installed Cost($35)($30)($25)($20)($15)($10)($5)$0$5$10$15$20$200 $210 $220 $230 $240 $250 $260 $270 $280 $290 $300Installed Cost

Average LCC SavingsBaseline: 4 WLevel 1aLevel 2aLevel 3aLevel 4aLevel 1b: 2 WLevel 2b: 1.5 WLevel 3b: 1 WLevel 4b: 0.02 WStandby Power LevelsEF Levels39Life-Cycle Cost Analysis ResultsCommercial Clothes WashersAverage LCC Savings vs. Installed Cost($25)$0$25$50$75$100$125$150$175$200$225$250$650 $750 $850 $950 $1,050 $1,150 $1,250 $1,350 $1,450Installed Cost

Average LCC SavingsBaselineLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4BaselineLevel 1Level 2Top-LoadingFront-LoadingLevel 3Request for Additional Comments40Public CommentDOE invites comments on any other issues pertaining to the EnergyUse, Markups, and Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses.41NOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisReviseANOPRAnalysesTrialStandardLevelsConsumerSubgroupAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysis42PurposeShipments Analysis•To estimate cooking product and commercial clothes washer shipmentsover time.National Impact Analysis•To estimate the NationalEnergy Savings (NES) from cooking product andcommercial clothes washer energy conservation standards at differentefficiency levels.•To estimate the national economic impact on the nation (or the Net PresentValue (NPV)) from home applianceenergy conservation standards atdifferent efficiency levels.Shipments Analysis43ApproachShipments AnalysisEstimate base-case shipments forecasts (2012–2042)•Develop a shipments model thataccounts for shipments to:– New construction: New housingconstruction forecasts multiplied by historical rates ofproduct ownership.– Replacements: Product retirement functions (product lifetimes) applied to product stock.•Historical shipments used tocalibrate shipments model.– Cooking products: Early replacements.– Commercial clothes washers: Non-replacements (retired units not replaced).Estimate standards-case shipments forecasts (2012–2042)•Developed with same data as used to estimate base-case forecasts.•Accounts for purchase price and operating cost changes due to standards as wellas household income.•Purchase price effects dominate.•Shipments forecasted to drop due to standards but consumers are forecasted tobe less sensitive to initialchanges in purchase price.44Cooking ProductsShipments Analysis Results02468101214161820221985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045Year

Shipments (million)Base CaseStandards CaseExample Standard Level = 1 W Standby PowerMicrowave OvensConventional Cooking Products•Complete market saturation; nodrop in shipments due to standardsforecasted.•No equipment switching.•Elimination of standing pilot ignitionin gas cooking products estimatednot to cause fuel switching toelectric cooking; cost of electricaloutlet to accommodate electriccooking products is over 5 timesgreater than outlet for gas cookingproducts.45Commercial Clothes WashersShipments Analysis Results0.000.010.020.030.040.050.061985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035Year

Shipments (million)Base CaseStandards Case0.000.050.100.150.200.251985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035Year

Shipments (million)Base CaseStandards CaseTop-Loading WashersFront-Loading WashersExample Standard Level= 1.76 MEF, 8.3 WFExample Standard Level = 2.00 MEF, 5.5 WFNational energy savings calculated from 2012-2042.National NPV calculated for product shipments entering the building stock from 2012-2042.Base case incorporates the penetration of higher efficiency products.Standards “roll up” inefficient productsbut do not affectefficient products.ApproachNational Impact Analysis46Example: Gas Standard Ovens0.05480.06000.05960.05930.05720.05660.05400.0498SWEF (EF)25.8%0%0%0%0%0%8.2%8.2%0.05831a*0%100%0%0%0%0%0%0%0.060060%-100%0%0%0%0%0%0.059650%--100%0%0%0%0%0.059340%---100%0%0%0%0.057230%----100%0%0%0.0566274.2%-----91.8%74.2%0.05361*-------17.6%0.0298Baseline1a654321Candidate Standard LevelBase CaseMarket SharesEFCandidateStandardLevelOnce a standard is in place, oldequipment goes out ofthe inventory according to the base caseefficiency mix. New equipment is sold to replace equipment according to the new efficiencymix.Use national average equipment prices, annual energy use, energy prices, annual repair andmaintenance expenditures from LCC analysis. Streams of energyuse and total costs calculatedover analysis time periods andcosts discounted to the present.47NOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisReviseANOPRAnalysesTrialStandardLevelsConsumerSubgroupAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysis48Purpose•To develop a list of standardlevels from which impacts areweighed and aproposed standardlevel is selected.– Each trial standard levelconsists of a set of potential minimum efficiency levels coveringall product classes, and may varybetween productclasses; and– NOPR analyses assess impacts for trial standard levels(not product classes).Method•Trial standard levels are assembled from the product classes identified in the NOPR.– Analyzed standard levelscover a range of efficiencies and can include:Most energy efficientlevel (max tech);Efficiency level with the lowest life-cycle cost;Efficiency level with a paybackperiod of three years or less;Efficiency levels with noteworthy technologies; andEfficiency levels that fill in largegaps between candidate standard levels.– Each trial standard level consists of the analyzed standard level fromeach product classthat meets one ofthe above criteria.•“Mixed” TSLs were constructed basedon NPV results for product classes.Trial Standard LevelsSelection of Trial Standard Levels49Trial Standard LevelsTrial Standard Levels for the NOPRConventional Cooking Products*Gas self-cleaning ovens are already required to use pilotless ignition systems because they are equipped with power cords.0.06320.0625No New Standard*(Baseline)No New Standard*(Baseline)Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens0.0600No PilotNo PilotNo PilotGas Standard Ovens0.1123No Standard (Baseline)No Standard (Baseline)No Standard (Baseline)Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens0.12090.11630.1163No Standard (Baseline)Electric Standard Ovens0.420No PilotNo PilotNo PilotGas Cooktops0.753No Standard (Baseline)No Standard (Baseline)No Standard (Baseline)Electric Smooth Cooktops0.7690.7690.769No Standard (Baseline)Electric Coil CooktopsTSL 4TSL 3TSL 2TSL 1Product classTrial standard levels (EF)Microwave Oven Energy Factor0.6020.5970.5880.586EFTSL 4aTSL 3aTSL 2aTSL 1aTrial standard levelsMicrowave Ovens Standby Power0.021.01.52.0StandbyPower (W)TSL4bTSL 3bTSL 2bTSL 1bTrial standard levelsCommercial Clothes Washers4.45.15.55.57.5WF2.352.202.002.001.80MEFFront-Loading8.38.38.38.59.5WF1.761.761.761.601.42MEFTop-LoadingTSL 5TSL 4TSL 3TSL 2TSL 1Trial Standard Levels50NPV Results by TSLConventional Cooking Products•TSLs 1 through 3 provide apositive NPV ranging from$0.22 Billion to $0.39Billion at 7 percent discount rate.•TSL 4 provides a negative NPV of -$12.55 Billion at 7 percent discount rate.Microwave Ovens•TSLs 1a through 4a provide anegative NPV ranging from -$0.61 Billion to-$4.94 Billion at 7 percent discount rate.•TSLs 1b through 4b provide a positive NPV ranging from $0.91 Billion to$1.61 Billion at 7 percent discount rate.Commercial Clothes Washers•TSL 1 provides a negative NPV of -$0.001 Billion at 7 percent discount rate.•TSLs 2 through 5 provide apositive NPV ranging from$0.32 Billion to $0.55Billion at 7 percent discount rate.National Impact Analysis51NOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisReviseANOPRAnalysesTrialStandardLevelsConsumerSubgroupAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysis52Consumer Subgroup AnalysisConsumer Subgroup AnalysisPurpose•To evaluate the economic impacts of standards on consumer subgroups who may bedisproportionately impacted compared with thegeneral user population.Method•For cooking products, DOE identified low-income consumers and seniors as subgroups thatcould be disproportionately affected, and examined the impact of proposed standards on thisthem.•For commercial clothes washers, DOE identified small businesses and consumers withoutmunicipal water and sewer thatcould be disproportionately affected, and examined the impactof proposed standards on this them.•DOE used the LCC spreadsheet model to determine the impact on the cooking product andcommercial clotheswasher subgroups.Output•LCC savings and simply payback period (in years) forthe identified customer subgroup.•Determined that the subgroups were not disproportionately impacted by the standard.53NOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisReviseANOPRAnalysesTrialStandardLevelsConsumerSubgroupAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysis54Manufacturer Impact AnalysisManufacturer Impact AnalysisPurpose•To assess the impacts of standards on residential cookingproduct and commercial clotheswasher manufacturers;•To identify and estimate impacts on manufacturersub-groups that maybe more severelyimpacted than the industry as a whole;•Two manufacturers ofgas ranges, ovens, and cooktops with standing pilots areclassified as small businesses by the SBA.•One “Low-Volume Manufacturer” (LVM) isfocused on thecommercial laundrybusiness and has much lower revenues than its larger competitors in the commercialclothes washer market.•To examine the impact of cumulativeregulatory burdenson the industry.Method•Analyze industry cash flowand net present value throughuse of the GovernmentRegulatory ImpactModel (GRIM); and•Interview manufacturers torefine inputs to the GRIM,develop sub-groupanalyses, andaddress qualitative issues.55Manufacturer Impact Analysis ProcessManufacturer Impact AnalysisThe MIA consists of three phases:IndustryprofileDevelopstraw-manGRIM*DevelopinterviewguideInterviews& industrywide /subgroupanalysesAssess directemployment,competition,cumulativeburdenFinalizeMIA resultsfor NOPRPhase 2* Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM)Phase 3Phase 156INPV Results by TSLChange in INPV analyzed for two scenarios:•Cooking Products– Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup– Preservation of Gross Margin Absolute Dollars Markup•Commercial Clothes Washers– Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup with Base Case Shipments– Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markupwith Price Elasticity of Demand ShipmentsConventional Cooking Products•Gas cooktops: INPV ranges from -$5 million to -$12 million at TSL 1 to $28 million to -$141million at TSL 4.•Electric cooktops: INPV ranges from $0 at TSL 1 to$77 million to -$383 million at TSL 4.•Gas ovens: INPV ranges from -$7 million to-$10 million at TSL 1 to -$47million to -$181 million at TSL 4.•Electric ovens: INPV ranges from $0 at TSL 1 to -$10million to -$469million at TSL 4.Microwave Ovens•Energy Factor: INPV ranges from $44 million to-$199 million at TSL1a to $267 million to-$1165 million atTSL 4a.•Standby Power: INPV ranges from -$22million to -$26 million atTSL 1b to -$35 millionto -$172 million at TSL4b.Commercial Clothes Washers•INPV ranges from $4 million to $3 million at TSL 1 to -$30 million to -$32 million at TSL 5.Manufacturer Impact Analysis57NOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisReviseANOPRAnalysesTrialStandardLevelsConsumerSubgroupAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysis58Purpose•To investigate the effects on utilities from reduced energy sales and peak loaddemand due topotential standards.Method•Use National Energy Savings Results; and•Use the EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS-BT) tailored for DOE’s BuildingTechnologies Program.Output•Change in electricity and gas sales andprice by region;•Change in the mix of electricity generation; and•Change in installed capacity and generation.Utility Impact AnalysisUtility Impact Analysis59NOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisReviseANOPRAnalysesTrialStandardLevelsConsumerSubgroupAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysis60Purpose•To report net jobs created oreliminated nationally as aconsequence of new or amendedenergy conservation standards. Employment impacts include direct and indirect impacts.Method•Uses the Impact of SectorEnergy Technologies (ImSET) model to assess the indirectemployment impacts;•Estimate changes in employment, industry output, and wage income in the overall UnitedStates economy resulting fromchanges in expenditures inthe various sectors of theeconomy;•Estimate changes incosts and benefits using the NIA analysis; and•Direct employment impacts are addressed inthe Manufacturer Impact Analysis (MIA).Output•Change in employment in national economy, other than in the manufacturingsector beingregulated, as a consequence of the amended energyconservation standards.Employment Impact AnalysisEmployment Impact Analysis61NOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisReviseANOPRAnalysesTrialStandardLevelsConsumerSubgroupAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysis62Purpose•To report environmental impacts as a consequence ofthe amended energyconservationstandards, including changesin power plant emissions.Output•Calculated the reductionin power plant emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), oxides of nitrogen(NOX) and mercury (Hg), usingthe NEMS-BT computer model.•Calculated the reductionin on-site emissions (CO2and NOX) where gas appliances are used(i.e., gas cooking products andgas water heating and dryingfor commercial clothes washers)•Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission was not included due to the emission cap set by the Clean AirAct Amendments of1990. Impact on SO2emissions changes was estimated as too small toaffect value of emissionsallowances under the cap.•Monetized value of reductions in CO2, NOX, and Hg.•Assessed impact to SO2allowance prices.Environmental AssessmentEnvironmental Assessment63Issues for which DOE seeks comments(Issues #11 and #12)DOE seeks comment on the appropriatenessof using other discount rates inaddition to seven percent and three percent real to discount future emissionsreductions.DOE seeks comment on the determination of the anticipated environmentalimpacts of the proposed rule, particularly with respect to the methods forvaluing the expected CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions savings due to theproposed standards.Environmental AssessmentDOE believes that discounted environmentalbenefits represent a policy perspectivewherein benefits farther in the future areless significant than energy savings closerto the present.DOE has made several additions to its monetization ofenvironmental emissionsreductions in today’s proposed rule, but has chosen tocontinue to report thesebenefits separately from thenet benefits of energy savings.Nothing in EPCA, nor in the National Environmental Policy Act,requires that theeconomic value of emissions reduction be incorporated in the net present valueanalysis of the valueof energy savings.Unlike energy savings, theeconomic value of emissions reduction is not priced in themarketplace.64NOPR Analyses Flow DiagramEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisReviseANOPRAnalysesTrialStandardLevelsConsumerSubgroupAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisEnvironmentalAssessmentRegulatoryImpactAnalysis65Purpose•To investigate the national impacts due tonon-regulatory alternatives compared withmandatory energy conservation standards.•The non-regulatory alternatives that DOE analyzed include:– No New Regulatory Action;– Consumer Rebates;– Commercial Customer Tax Credits;– Voluntary Energy-Efficiency Targets—ENERGY STAR;– ManufacturerTax Credits;– Early Replacement; and– Bulk Government Purchases.Method•Modify NIA spreadsheet model toconsider the above scenariosand assess their affect onadoption of products at the proposed standard levels.Output•National Energy Savings andNet Present Value of the non-regulatory alternatives.Regulatory Impact AnalysisRegulatory Impact Analysis66Summary of Issues on which DOEseeks comment - NOPR issues #1-7Issues for Public Comment1.The proposed standards for residential gas kitchen ranges and ovens, microwave ovens, andCCWs, as well as the proposed“no-standard” standard forresidential electric kitchen rangesand ovens other thanmicrowave ovens;2.Battery-powered spark ignitionmodules as a viable alternative to standing pilots;3.The preliminary determination ofthe technical infeasibility ofincorporating microwave ovencooking efficiency with standby mode andoff mode power intoa single metric4.Input and data regarding off mode power for microwave ovens;5.Input and data on the utility provided by specific features thatcontribute to microwave ovenstandby power, particularly theutility of display technologies and cookingsensors that do notrequire standby power;6.Input and data on control strategies availableto allow manufacturers tomake design tradeoffsbetween incorporating standby-power-consuming features suchas displays or cookingsensors and including a functionto turn power off to thesecomponents duringstandby mode;also, the viability and cost ofmicrowave oven control board circuitry that could accommodatetransistors to switch offcooking sensors and displays.7.Whether switching or similar modern powersupplies can operate successfully inside amicrowave oven and the associatedefficiency impacts on standby power.67Summary of Issues on which DOEseeks comment - NOPR issues #8-12Issues for Public Comment8.The selection of microwave ovenstandby power efficiency levels for the engineering analysis;9.Input and data on the estimated incremental manufacturingcosts, as well as approaches toachieve each standby level formicrowave ovens; also, whether there are any intellectualproperty or patent infringementissues associated with the design options presented in theTechnical Support Document (TSD) to achieve each standby level;10.Input and data on the estimated market share of microwaveovens at different standby powerconsumption levels;11.The appropriateness of using other discount rates in addition to seven percent and threepercent to discount fromfuture emissions reductions.12.The determination of the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposedrule, particularlythe method for valuing the expected CO2 and NOx emissionssavings due to the proposedstandards.Request for Additional Comments68Public CommentDOE invites comments on any remaining issues pertaining to thisNOPR.69How to Submit Comments...Public Meeting– Oral comments will be capturedin the transcript and becomepart of the public record.Written comments– NOPR comment period open until December 16, 2008.Reference docket #: EE–2006–STD–0127 and/or RIN #: 1904–AB49.Email: home_appliance.rulemaking@ee.doe.govMail: Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding TechnologiesProgram, Mailstop EE–2J1000 Independence Avenue, SW.Washington, DC 20585–0121.Telephone: (202) 586–2945.Courier: Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Program950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor,Washington, DC 20024.Closing70Backup SlidesSummary of Results For Conventional Cooking Products71(1) – (59)(1) – (2)(1) – (2)0Industry NPV (% Change)(10) – (469)(8) – (19)(8) – (19)0Industry NPV (2006$ million)Electric Ovens(10) – (39)(1) – (9)(2)(2)Industry NPV (% Change)(47) – (181)(6) – (41)(7) – (10)(7) – (10)Industry NPV (2006$ million)Gas Ovens22 – (107)(1) – (3)(1) – (3)0Industry NPV (% Change)77 – (383)(2) – (11)(2) – (11)0Industry NPV (2006$ million)Electric Cooktops10 – (49)(2) – (4)(2) – (4)(2) – (4)Industry NPV (% Change)28 – (141)(5) – (12)(5) – (12)(5) – (12)Industry NPV (2006$ million)Gas CooktopsIndustry Impacts:(23.141)1.3741.1860.6093% Discount Rate(12.548)0.3810.3930.2157% Discount RateNPV (2006$ billion):0.1670.1090.0740.056Generation Capacity Reduction (GW)**0.260.170.120.083% Discount Rate0.120.080.060.047% Discount Rate0.500.320.230.14Primary Energy Saved (quads)TSL 4TSL 3TSL 2TSL 1Category72240---Electric Oven/Self-Clean Oven60.68.08.0-Electric Oven/Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line16.411.4--Gas Oven/Self-Clean Oven26.99.49.49.4Gas Oven/Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line1512---Electric Cooktop/Smooth Elements7.37.37.3-Electric Cooktop/Low or High Wattage Open (Coil) Elements77.14.54.54.5Gas Cooktop/Conventional BurnersMedian PBP (years):(143)---Electric Oven/Self-Clean Oven(52)99-Electric Oven/Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line(6)1--Gas Oven/Self-Clean Oven(86)666Gas Oven/Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line(283)---Electric Cooktop/Smooth Elements444-Electric Cooktop/Low or High Wattage Open (Coil) Elements(11)131313Gas Cooktop/Conventional BurnersMean LCC Savings* (2006$):0 – 0.560 – 0.370 – 0.260 – 0.20Hg (t)14.99 – 30.6510.11 – 20.556.39 – 13.716.32 – 12.06NOx(kt)37.5425.0816.6214.62CO2(Mt)Cumulative Emissions Impacts†:TSL 4TSL 3TSL 2TSL 1CategorySummary of Results For Conventional Cooking Products - Continued730.0---Net Benefit (%)0.0---No Impact (%)100.0---Net Cost (%)Electric Cooktop/Smooth Elements70.670.670.6-Net Benefit (%)0.00.00.0-No Impact (%)29.429.429.4-Net Cost (%)Electric Cooktop/Low or High Wattage Open (Coil) Elements6.16.36.36.3Net Benefit (%)0.093.593.593.5No Impact (%)93.90.20.20.2Net Cost (%)Gas Cooktop/Conventional BurnersLCC Results:TSL 4TSL 3TSL 2TSL 1CategorySummary of Results For Conventional Cooking Products - Continued74†CO2emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants and at households. NOxemissions impacts include physicalreductions at power plants as well as production of emissions allowance credits where NOxemissions are subject to emissions caps.** Changes in installed generation capacity by 2042 based on AEO 2008Reference Case.* Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.21.1---Net Benefit (%)0.0---No Impact (%)78.9---Net Cost (%)Electric Oven/Self-Clean Oven4.856.156.1-Net Benefit (%)0.00.00.0-No Impact (%)95.243.943.9-Net Cost (%)Electric Oven/Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line31.241.1--Net Benefit (%)0.00.0--No Impact (%)68.858.9--Net Cost (%)Gas Oven/Self-Clean Oven5.011.211.211.2Net Benefit (%)0.082.382.382.3No Impact (%)95.06.56.56.5Net Cost (%)Gas Oven/Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic LineLCC Results:TSL 4TSL 3TSL 2TSL 1CategorySummary of Results For Conventional Cooking Products - Continued750 – 0.840 – 0.600 – 0.370 – 0.25Hg (t)1.91 – 47.041.37 – 33.740.85 – 20.850.58 – 14.25NOx(kt)38.5127.5416.9511.49CO2(Mt)Cumulative Emissions Impacts†:18 – (80)16 – (47)8 – (27)3 – (14)Industry NPV (% Change)267 – (1165)237 – (675)117 – (386)44 – (199)Industry NPV (2006$ million)Industry Impacts:(9.28)(5.72)(2.96)(1.07)3% Discount Rate(4.94)(3.06)(1.60)(0.61)7% Discount RateNPV (2006$ billion):0.2270.1600.0970.063Generation Capacity Reduction (GW)**0.070.060.050.053% Discount Rate0.030.030.020.027% Discount Rate0.120.110.090.08Primary Energy Saved (quads)TSL 4aTSL 3aTSL 2aTSL 1aCategorySummary of Results For Microwave Ovens (Energy Factor)76†CO2emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants. NOxemissions impacts include physical reductions at powerplants as well as production of emissions allowance credits where NOxemissions are subject to emissions caps.** Changes in installed generation capacity by 2042 based on AEO 2008Reference Case.* Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.0.10.41.14.3Net Benefit (%)53.753.753.753.7No Impact (%)46.245.945.242.0Net Cost (%)LCC Results:114.681.457.129.4Median PBP (years):(31)(19)(10)(3)Mean LCC Savings* (2006$):TSL 4aTSL 3aTSL 2aTSL 1aCategorySummary of Results For Microwave Ovens (Energy Factor) – Continued770 – 1.770 – 1.090 – 0.760 – 0.50Hg (t)4.35 – 107.232.67 – 65.961.87 – 46.021.23 – 30.30NOx(kt)82.1250.4835.1923.15CO2(Mt)Cumulative Emissions Impacts†:(2.40) – (11.87)(2.52) – (4.92)(2.44) – (3.28)(1.50) – (1.77)Industry NPV (% Change)(35) – (172)(37) – (71)(35) – (48)(22) – (26)Industry NPV (2006$ million)Industry Impacts:3.903.522.792.033% Discount Rate1.611.561.250.917% Discount RateNPV (2006$ billion):0.5250.3200.2220.145Generation Capacity Reduction (GW)**0.380.250.180.133% Discount Rate0.190.120.090.067% Discount Rate0.690.450.330.23Primary Energy Saved (quads)TSL 4bTSL 3bTSL 2bTSL 1bCategorySummary of Results For Microwave Ovens (Standby Power)78†CO2emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants. NOxemissions impacts include physical reductions at powerplants as well as production of emissions allowance credits where NOxemissions are subject to emissions caps.** Changes in installed generation capacity by 2042 based on AEO 2008Reference Case.* Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated.100.0100.080.943.3Net Benefit (%)0.00.019.153.7No Impact (%)0.00.00.00.0Net Cost (%)LCC Results:3.11.50.60.3Median PBP (years):1918136Mean LCC Savings* (2006$):TSL 4bTSL 3bTSL 2bTSL 1bCategorySummary of Results For Microwave Ovens (Standby Power) – Continued79Summary of Results For Commercial Clothes Washers0.230.200.190.160.00Wastewater DischargeImpacts (trillion gallons)0 – 0.190 – 0.180 – 0.170 – 0.120 – 0.05Hg (t)4.67 – 10.954.51 – 10.564.25– 9.933.04 – 7.131.43 – 3.25NOx(kt)12.7312.2811.558.303.79CO2(Mt)Cumulative Emissions Impacts†:(53.1) – (58.2)(32.0) – (36.8)(26.5) – (31.1)(6.4) – (10.3)6.5 – 4.9Industry NPV (% Change)(30) – (32)(18) – (20)(15) – (17)(4) – (6)4 – 3Industry NPV (2006$ million)Industry Impacts:1.391.271.160.830.043% Discount Rate0.550.500.460.32(0.001)7% Discount RateNPV (2006$ billion):0.0310.0300.0280.0200.009Generation Capacity Reduction (GW)**0.130.110.100.090.003% Discount Rate0.060.050.050.040.007% Discount Rate0.240.210.190.160.00Primary Water Saved (trillion gallons)0.090.090.080.060.033% Discount Rate0.040.040.040.030.017% Discount Rate0.170.160.150.110.05Primary Energy Saved (quads)TSL 5TSL 4TSL 3TSL 2TSL 1Category80Summary of Results For Commercial Clothes Washers – Continued96.196.196.193.610.9Net Benefit (%)2.82.82.82.835.7No Impact (%)1.11.11.13.653.4Net Cost (%)Laundromat87.287.287.281.719.3Net Benefit (%)2.82.82.82.835.7No Impact (%)10.010.010.015.445.0Net Cost (%)Multi-FamilyTop-LoadingLCC Results:1.61.70.30.30.0Front-Loading, Laundromat2.82.80.40.40.0Front-Loading, Multi-Family2.42.42.42.87.4Top-Loading, Laundromat3.83.83.84.510.7Top-Loading, Multi-FamilyMedian PBP (years):25014058589.5Front-Loading, Laundromat23413452528.7Front-Loading, Multi-Family252252252166(19.6)Top-Loading, Laundromat244244244154(11.6)Top-Loading, Multi-FamilyMean LCC Savings* (2006$):TSL 5TSL 4TSL 3TSL 2TSL 1Category81†CO2emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants and at commercialbuildings. NOxemissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants as well asproduction of emissions allowance credits where NOxemissions are subject to emissions caps.** Changes in installed generation capacity by 2042 based on AEO 2008Reference Case.* Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. ForLCCs, a negative value means an increase inLCC by the amount indicated.98.597.211.711.77.3Net Benefit (%)1.52.888.388.392.7No Impact (%)0.00.00.00.00.0Net Cost (%)Laundromat97.094.911.711.77.3Net Benefit (%)1.52.888.388.392.7No Impact (%)1.52.30.00.00.0Net Cost (%)Multi-FamilyFront-LoadingLCC Results:TSL 5TSL 4TSL 3TSL 2TSL 1CategorySummary of Results For Commercial Clothes Washers – Continued82Market Characteristics – Residential Gas RangesMarket and Technology AssessmentFour manufacturers account for approximately 89% of the domesticmarket share of gas ranges.Source:Appliance Magazine,30th Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry, September 2007.GE, 38%Electrolux(Frigidaire), 25%Maytag, 15%Whirlpool, 11%Peerless Premier,7%Others, 4%83Market Characteristics – Residential Electric RangesMarket and Technology AssessmentFour manufacturers account for approximately 90% of the domesticmarket share of electric ranges.Source:Appliance Magazine,30th Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry, September 2007.GE, 49%Whirlpool, 22%Electrolux(Frigidaire), 10%Maytag, 9%Peerless Premier,5%Others, 5%84Market Characteristics – Microwave OvensMarket and Technology AssessmentThe microwave oven market differs fromthe rest of the domestic cookingproduct market.•Many of the manufacturers are foreign-owned companies with manufacturingfacilities outside of the United States.•Many of the domestic appliance manufacturers rebrand foreign-manufacturedproducts.Source:Appliance Magazine,30th Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry, September 2007.LG Electronics, 35%Sharp, 21%Samsung, 12%Daewoo, 8%Panasonic, 8%Whirlpool, 4%Others, 12%85Market Characteristics – Commercial Clothes WashersMarket and Technology AssessmentFour manufacturers account for nearly entire domestic market share ofcommercial clothes washers.Source: Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE).Commercial, Family-Sized Washers: An Initiative Description of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency. 1998.WascomatGELGWhirlpoolContinentalMaytagElectroluxAllianceOther ManufacturersMajor Manufacturers86Product ClassesMarket and Technology Assessment•Cooking Products•Gas cooktop/conventional burners•Electric cooktop/open (coil) elements•Electric cooktop/smooth elements•Gas oven/standard oven•Gas oven/self-clean oven•Electric oven/standard oven•Electric oven/self-clean oven•Microwave oven with orwithout thermal elementsCommercial Clothes Washers•Top-loading•Front-loading87Screening Analysis MethodScreening AnalysisDesign options screened using the following criteria:•Technological feasibility;•Practicability to manufacture, install and service;•Adverse impacts on product utility or product availability; and•Adverse impacts on health or safety.88Technologies Selected for Further ConsiderationScreening AnalysisGas Cooktops4. Thermostatically controlled burners3. Sealed burners2. Insulation1. Electronic ignitionElectric Open (Coil) Element Cooktops4. Low-standby-loss electronic controls3. Insulation2. Improved contact conductance1. Electronic controlsElectric Smooth Element Cooktops4. Low-standby-loss electronic controls3. Induction elements2. Halogen elements1. Electronic controls89Technologies Selected for Further Consideration(Continued)Screening AnalysisGas and Electric Ovens9. Steam cooking8. Reduced vent rate7. Reduced conduction losses6. Radiant burner (gas only)5. Pilotless ignition (gas only)4. Low-standby-loss electronic controls3. Improved insulation2. Improved door seals1. Forced convection90Technologies Selected for Further Consideration(Continued)Screening AnalysisMicrowave Ovens (Energy Factor)10. Reflective surfaces9. Modified wave guide8. Low-standby-loss electronic controls7. Improved power supply efficiency6. Improved magnetron efficiency5. Improved fan efficiency4. Eliminate or improve ceramic stirrer cover3. Dual magnetrons2. Cooking sensors1. Added insulationMicrowave Ovens (Standby Power)4. Automatic power-down3. Improved power supply and control board options2. Cooking sensors with no standby power requirement1. Lower-power display technologies91Technologies Selected for Further Consideration(Continued)Screening AnalysisCommercial Clothes Washers15. Tighter tub tolerance14. Thermostatically controlled mixing valves13. Steam washing12. Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology11. Low-standby-power electronic controls10. Increased motor efficiency9. Improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture content8. Improved front-loading-washer drum design7. Improved fill control6. Front-loading design with recirculation5. Direct-drive motor4. Automatic water fill control3. Advanced agitation concepts for top-loading machines2. Added insulation1. Adaptive control systems92Downstream Analyses•Life-Cycle Cost andPayback Period•National Impacts•Manufacturer ImpactAnalysisCost – EfficiencyRelationship

Incremental Manufacturing CostEFEngineering AnalysisCharacterize the relationship betweenmanufacturer cost and efficiency (EF orMEF/WF) or standby powerPurpose of the Engineering AnalysisConventional Cooking Products: Historical Annual Energy UseConventional cooking product annualenergy consumption has been indecline since 1970sLatest data from 2004 California Residential Appliance Saturation Surveyand the Florida Solar Energy Centerused to estimate annual energy use•Variability in the annual energy based on data from the 2001 RECSEnergy Use and Water Use CharacterizationElectric RangesGas RangesMicrowave Ovens: Historical Annual Energy UseAnnual energy consumptionhas held ‘relatively’ steady since the late 1980’sLatest data from 2004 California Residential Appliance Saturation Survey usedto estimate annual energy use•Variability in the annual energy based on data from the 2001 RECSEnergy Use and Water Use CharacterizationCooktop, Oven, and Microwave Oven: Annual Energy UseElectric Cooktops (0.737 EF)•Cooking = 128 kWh/yearElectric Standard Ovens (0.107 EF)•Cooking = 132 kWh/year•Clock = 34.2 kWh/yearElectric Self-Clean Ovens (0.096 EF)•Cooking = 117 kWh/year•Clock = 33 kWh/year•Self-Clean = 21 kWh/yearMicrowave Ovens (0.557 EF)•Cooking = 131 kWh/yearGas Cooktops (0.156 EF)•Cooking = 0.7 MMBtu/year•Standing Pilots = 2.0 MMBtu/yearGas Standard Ovens (0.030 EF)•Cooking = 0.8 MMBtu/year•Standing Pilot = 1.0 MMBtu/year•Units with Hot SurfaceIgnition = 21 kWh/yearGas Self-Clean Ovens (0.054 EF)•Cooking = 0.7 MMBtu/year•Self-Clean = 0.2 MMBtu/year; 0.7 kWh/year•Hot Surface Ignition = 21 kWh/year•Clock = 32 kWh/yearEnergy Use and Water Use CharacterizationDOE relied on latest energy use estimates to establish baseline annualenergy consumptionCommercial Clothes Washers: Annual Energy and Water UseAnnual Energy & Water Use = Per-Cycle Use x Cycles per yearPer-cycle energy use components•Water-heating•Drying•MachineDrying energy use (RMC) and machine energy use are a function of MEF•Based on residential clothes washer dataNumber of cycles per day•Multi-Family: Average = 3.4; Range = 1 to 10.9•Laundromats: Average = 6; Range = 3 to 8Annual energy and water use of baseline top-loading clothes washer (1.26MEF, 9.50 WF)•Multi-Family– Energy use = 2769kWh/year(1020kWhWH; 1583kWhdrying; 166kWhmachine)– Water use = 331000-gallons/year•Laundromats– Energy use = 4866kWh/year(1793kWhWH; 2782kWhdrying; 291kWhmachine)– Water use = 581000-gallons/yearEnergy Use and Water Use Characterization97Baseline and Incremental MarkupsMarkups to Determine Equipment PriceMarkupsrelate customer price to cost of goods sold (CGS)Baseline markupsrelate price to cost prior to a change in efficiency•Baseline markups indicate a customer price that covers allof a retailer’s ordistributor’s expenses plus profit•Direct labor costs (salaries, payroll, rental and occupancy) are includedIncremental markupsrelate the incremental change in customer priceto the incremental change in CGS•Some costs remain constant with CGS increases•Incremental markups cover only expensesthat vary with CGS – in this case,expenses that increase due to anincrease in equipment efficiency– For example, direct labor costs (salaries, payroll, rental and occupancy) do not vary withefficiency-induced changes in CGS•DOE assumes other operating costs and profit will scale proportionally with CGS98Markups to Determine Equipment PriceResulting Markups1.591.55* Represents average of all sevenproduct classes of cooking products.1.931.95Overall1.06841.069*Sales Tax1.181.43--Distributor--1.151.45Retailer1.261.26ManufacturerIncr.BaselineIncr.BaselineMarkupCommercial Clothes WashersCooking ProductsLife-Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysesLCC Calculation FlowchartTotal InstalledCostFromEngineeringAnalysis(Cost is aFunction ofEfficiency)From Markupsto DetermineEquipmentPriceRepair CostMaintenanceCostAnnualOperatingExpenseLifetimeOperatingExpenseFrom Energy Useand Water UseCharacterization(Energy & WaterUse are a Functionof Efficiency)PaybackPeriodEnergy(and Water)ConsumptionManufacturerMarkupSales TaxRetailer orDistributorMarkupConsumerPriceBaselineManufacturerCostStd-LevelManufacturerCostEnergy(and Water)PricesAnnual Energy(and Water)CostLifetimeDiscount RateEnergy(and Water)Price TrendInstallationCost100National Impact Analysis ProcessShipmentsModelNationalEnergySavingsNationalEconomicImpactsLCCAnalysisResults andOther InputsNationalEnergy Savings(Quads)NationalNet Present Value(2006 US $, billion)National energy savings calculatedfor period from 2012-2042 (30 years)NPV calculated for period from 2012-2062101Shipments ModelShipments AnalysisAppliance StockApplianceLifetimeReplacementShipmentsCombinedShipmentsNew BuildingConstructionNew BuildingApplianceSaturationNewConstructionShipmentsHistoricalShipmentsShipmentsDifferenceTotalShipmentsEarly RetirementRate(Calibration Variable)EarlyReplacementShipments(For Cooking Products)Units notReplaced(For Commercial CW)Rate of NonReplacement(Calibration Variable)Product ClassMarket SharesTotalShipmentsby Class(For Cooking Products)Purchase Price and Operating Cost ImpactsShipments AnalysisShipments impacts due to purchase price and operating cost changesare accounted for when forecasting standards case shipmentsShipments Model usedRelative Price(RP) elasticity to estimate theimpacts from purchase price (PP) and the present value of operatingcost (PVOC) changesPurchase price effects dominate but mitigated by household incomeBased on historical shipments, retail price, efficiency, and income datafor home appliances,RPelasticity = -0.34•10% increase inRPresults in a 3.4% drop in shipments•Consumers become less sensitive toinitial changes in purchase price– Based on economic literature,RPelasticity drops 65% in ten yearsIncomePVOCPPRP+=InputsNational Impact AnalysisTotal Installed Cost•Average per unit values as a function of efficiencylevel taken from LCC analysisRepair and Maintenance Costs•No increase in repair and maintenance costs with efficiencyAnnual Energy Use•Average per unit values as a function of efficiencylevel taken from LCC analysisBase-Case and Standards-Case Forecasted Efficiencies•Base-Case efficiencies 2005-2012: Based on base case efficiency distributions from LCC analysis•Standards-Case efficiencies 2012:Based on “Roll-up” scenario•Forecasted efficiencies: Frozen at 2012 levelswith the exception of basecase efficiencies for gascooking productsEnergy and Water Prices•Average prices taken from LCC analysis•Future energy prices adjusted according to trend forecasted by the2008 Annual Energy Outlook•Future water prices forecasted on linear extrapolation of CPI national water price index from 1970-2006Electricity Site-to-Source Conversion Factors•Conversion factors based onmarginal heat rates fromNEMS corresponding to2008 Annual EnergyOutlook•Factors vary annually and account for generation, distribution, and transmission lossesDiscount Rate•7% and 3% real from OMB’s Regulatory Analysis Guideline A-4Present Year•Future expenses are discounted to the year 2007