CHAPTER 9. TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

9.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 9-1
 

9.2 COOKING PRODUCTS – COOKTOPS AND OVENS ................................................ 9-1
 

9.3 COOKING PRODUCTS – MICROWAVE OVENS...................................................... 9-2
 

9.4 COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS ....................................................................... 9-3
 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 9.2.1 Trial Standard Levels for Cooktops and Ovens................................................... 9-2
 

Table 9.3.1 Trial Standard Levels for Microwave Oven EF................................................... 9-3
 

Table 9.3.2 Trial Standard Levels for Microwave Oven Standby Power............................... 9-3
 

Table 9.4.1 Trial Standard Levels for Commercial Clothes Washers .................................... 9-4
 

9-i 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 9. TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS
 

9.1 INTRODUCTION
 

DOE generated NES and NPV results based on trial standard levels (TSLs). The TSLs 

are based on the following: (1) candidate standard (efficiency) levels identified in the Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) published in November 15, 2007,1 (2) the candidate 

standard level identified with the maximum efficiency, and (3) a combination of candidate 

standard levels for different equipment classes that have potentially positive impacts on 

consumers and the Nation. 

9.2 COOKING PRODUCTS – COOKTOPS AND OVENS 

Table 9.2.1 shows the TSLs for conventional cooking products. As discussed in Chapter 

4, Screening Analysis, DOE conducts a screening analysis to determine the design options that 

are technologically feasible and can be considered as measures to improve product efficiency. 

However, there are few design options available for improving the efficiency of these cooking 

products due to physical limitations on energy transfer to the food load. This is particularly the 

case for all cooktop and self-cleaning oven product classes. For electric cooktops, DOE was able 

to identify only a single design change for analysis. For gas cooktops and electric self-cleaning 

ovens, DOE was able to identify two design options for analysis. And for gas self-cleaning 

ovens, DOE was able to identify three design options for analysis. Although DOE considered 

several design options for standard ovens, with the exception of eliminating standing pilots for 

gas standard ovens, none significantly increased product efficiency. Specifically, eliminating 

standing pilots reduces overall gas consumption by over 50 percent while all other design options 

reduce gas consumption by approximately two percent. Therefore, DOE gave further 

consideration to only four TSLs for conventional cooking products. 

TSL 1 represents the elimination of standing pilot ignition systems from gas cooking 

products. All other product classes are unaffected by TSL 1, including gas self-cleaning ovens, 

which are not allowed to use standing pilot ignition systems because they already use electricity 

and come equipped with power cords to enable the self-cleaning cycle. Under TSL 1, DOE’s 

current prescriptive standard of disallowing the use of standing pilot ignition systems in gas 

cooking pilots equipped with power cords would be extended to all gas cooking products, 

regardless of whether the appliance is equipped with a power cord. Also, under TSL 1, there 

would be no need for DOE to regulate the EF of any of the conventional cooking product classes 

because only standing pilot ignition systems are being affected. 

TSL 2 for conventional cooking products consists of the candidate standard levels from 

each of the product classes that provide a majority of consumers (who are impacted by the 

standard) with an economic benefit. Based on this criterion, only electric coil cooktops and 

electric standard ovens have candidate standard levels that differ from those in TSL 1. In other 

9-1 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

words, for the remaining five product classes (electric smooth cooktops, electric self-cleaning 

ovens, and all gas cooking product classes), analytical results indicate there is no candidate 

standard level that provides an economic benefit to a majority of consumers. 

TSL 3 for conventional cooking products consists of the same candidate standard levels 

as TSL 2, with the exception of the gas self-cleaning oven product class. For gas self-cleaning 

ovens, the design option that provides, on average, a small level of economic benefit to 

consumers is included. 

TSL 4 is the maximum technologically feasible level. 

Table 9.2.1 summarizes the four TSLs for cooktops and ovens. 

Table 9.2.1 Trial Standard Levels for Cooktops and Ovens 

Trial standard levels (EF) 

Product classes TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Electric Coil Cooktops No Standard 

(Baseline) 0.769 0.769 0.769 

Electric Smooth Cooktops No Standard 

(Baseline) 

No Standard 

(Baseline) 

No Standard 

(Baseline) 0.753 

Gas Cooktops No Pilot No Pilot No Pilot 0.420 

Electric Standard Ovens No Standard 

(Baseline) 0.1163 0.1163 0.1209 

Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens No Standard 

(Baseline) 

No Standard 

(Baseline) 

No Standard 

(Baseline) 0.1123 

Gas Standard Ovens No Pilot No Pilot No Pilot 0.0600 

Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens No New Standard* 

(Baseline) 

No New Standard* 

(Baseline) 0.0625 0.0632 

*	 Gas self-cleaning ovens are already required to use pilotless ignition systems because they are equipped with 

power cords. 

9.3 COOKING PRODUCTS – MICROWAVE OVENS 

Because it is technically infeasible to combine cooking efficiency (or EF) into a new 

efficiency metric with standby power consumption, DOE established two sets of TSLs—one set 

consisting solely of EF levels (TSLs 1a–4a) and a second set comprised solely of standby power 

levels (TSLs 1b–4b). 

Table 9.3.1 shows the TSLs for the regulation of cooking efficiency or EF. TSLs 1a 

though 4a correspond to candidate standard levels 1a through 4a, respectively, and affect only 

the EF. For TSLs 1a through 4a, no standard to limit standby power is specified. TSL 4a 

9-2 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

corresponds to the maximum feasible EF level. None of these first four TSLs have a life-cycle 

cost (LCC) lower than the baseline level. 

Table 9.3.1 Trial Standard Levels for Microwave Oven EF 

Trial standard levels 

TSL 1a TSL 2a TSL 3a TSL 4a 

EF 0.586 0.588 0.597 0.602 

Table 9.3.2 shows the TSLs for the regulation of standby power. TSLs 1b through 4b 

correspond to candidate standard levels 1b through 4b, respectively, and affect only the standby 

power. For TSLs 1b through 4b, no standard on EF is specified. All four of these TSLs yield 

LCC savings relative to the baseline level. TSL 3b corresponds to the maximum feasible level 

for the regulation of standby power which does not affect the appliance’s capability to 

continually display the time. TSL 4b corresponds to the maximum technologically feasible level 

for the regulation of standby power but results in the inability of the appliance to continually 

display the time. TSL 4b also represents the level with the minimum LCC. 

Table 9.3.2 Trial Standard Levels for Microwave Oven Standby Power 

Trial standard levels 

TSL 1b TSL 2b TSL 3b TSL4b 

Standby Power (W) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.02 

9.4 COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS 

Table 9.4.1 shows the TSLs for commercial clothes washers. TSLs consist of a 

combination of modified energy factor (MEF) and water factor (WF). In all, DOE has 

considered five TSLs. TSL 1 corresponds to the first candidate standard level from each product 

class and represents the efficiency level for each class with the least significant design change. 

For TSL 2, the candidate standard levels for each class are simply incremented to the second 

candidate standard level and represent the next technological design change for each class. TSL 

3 represents the third candidate standard level for top-loading washers (the maximum efficiency 

level for this class) while keeping front-loading washers at its second candidate standard level. 

For TSL 3, front-loading washers were held to the second candidate standard level in order to 

minimize the equipment price difference between the two product classes. For TSL 4, toploading washers are retained at their maximum efficiency level while front-loading washers are 

incremented to their third candidate standard level. Finally, TSL 5 corresponds to the maximum 

technologically feasible level for each product class. 

9-3 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

Table 9.4.1 Trial Standard Levels for Commercial Clothes Washers
 

Trial Standard Levels 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Top-Loading 

MEF 1.42 1.60 1.76 1.76 1.76 

WF 9.5 8.5 8.3 8.3 8.3 

Front-Loading 

MEF 1.80 2.00 2.00 2.20 2.35 

WF 7.5 5.5 5.5 5.1 4.4 

9-4 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 

REFERENCES 

U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy 

Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Consumer Products 

(Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, and Microwave 

Ovens) and for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment (Commercial Clothes 

Washers); Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Public Meeting. Federal 

Register, 2007. 72(220): pp. 64432-64515. 

9-5 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2