CHAPTER 4. SCREENING ANALYSIS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.2 DISCUSSION OF DESIGN OPTIONS .......................................................................... 4-1 

4.2.1 Screened-Out Design Options.......................................................................................... 4-2 

4.2.1.1 Dishwashers ................................................................................................... 4-3 

4.2.1.2 Dehumidifiers ................................................................................................ 4-4 

4.2.1.3 Cooking Products........................................................................................... 4-4 

4.2.1.4 Commercial Clothes Washers........................................................................ 4-8 

4.2.2 Remaining Design Options .............................................................................................. 4-9

4.2.2.1 Dishwashers ................................................................................................... 4-9 

4.2.2.2 Dehumidifiers .............................................................................................. 4-10 

4.2.2.3 Cooking Products......................................................................................... 4-10 

4.2.2.4 Commercial Clothes Washers...................................................................... 4-12 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 4.2.1 Retained Design Options for Dishwashers ........................................................ 4-10 

Table 4.2.2 Retained Design Options for Dehumidifiers...................................................... 4-10 

Table 4.2.3 Retained Design Options for Gas Cooktops ...................................................... 4-10 

Table 4.2.4 Retained Design Options for Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooktops ............. 4-11 

Table 4.2.5 Retained Design Options for Electric Smooth Element Cooktops .................... 4-11 

Table 4.2.6 Retained Design Options for Gas and Electric Ovens ....................................... 4-11 

Table 4.2.7 Retained Design Options for Microwave Ovens ............................................... 4-12 

Table 4.2.8 Retained Design Options for Commercial Clothes Washers ............................. 4-12 

4-i 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
CHAPTER 4. SCREENING ANALYSIS 

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter discusses the screening analysis conducted by the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) of the design options identified in the market and technology assessment for 

residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products and commercial clothes washers 

(Chapter 3 of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) technical support document 

(TSD)). In the market and technology assessment, DOE presented an initial list of technologies, 

or design options, that can be used to reduce energy consumption of each of the products covered 

in this rulemaking. The goal of the screening analysis is to identify any design options that will 

be eliminated from further consideration in the rulemaking analyses. 

For each product, the corresponding candidate design options are assessed based on DOE 

analysis as well as inputs from stakeholders including manufacturers, trade organizations, and 

energy efficiency advocates. Design options which are judged to be viable approaches for 

improving energy efficiency are retained as inputs to the subsequent engineering analysis. 

Design options which are not incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes, or 

that fail to meet certain criteria as to practicability to manufacture, install and service, as to 

impacts on product utility or availability, or as to health or safety will be eliminated from 

consideration in accordance with Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: 

Procedures for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Products. (61 FR 36974, section 4(a)(4) and 5(b)). The rationale for either screening out or 

retaining each design option is detailed in the following sections. 

4.2 DISCUSSION OF DESIGN OPTIONS 

For residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers, the 

screening criteria specified in section 4.1 were applied to the design options to either retain or 

eliminate each technology from the engineering analysis. 

For cooking products, information used for applying the screening criteria to most of the 

design options were derived from the previous rulemaking’s TSD, DOE’s 1996 Technical 

Support Document for Residential Cooking Products (1996 TSD). The Framework Document 

for this rulemaking, entitled Rulemaking Framework for Commercial Clothes Washers and 

Residential Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products, March 15, 2006, describes 

which design options DOE intends to reevaluate for the engineering analysis in the current 

rulemaking. The approach proposed in the Framework Document for conventional cooking 

products is to retain the same screening results as put forth in the 1996 TSD. In addition, lowstandby-loss electronics, which DOE identified for cooking products through literature searches 

and stakeholder inputs, were evaluated. It should also be noted that radiant elements for smooth 

cooktops, which were included as a design option in the 1996 TSD, were not included in the 

4-1 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
current rulemaking because manufacturer data provided to DOE for the 1996 TSD indicated that 

this technology did not demonstrate an efficiency improvement over the baseline according to 

the DOE test procedure, and DOE is unaware of any more recent data that indicates otherwise. 

For microwave ovens, design options from the 1996 TSD were screened in the same 

manner as in the previous rulemaking. However, three additional design options – cooking 

sensors, dual magnetrons, and low-standby-loss electronic controls – were evaluated. DOE 

identified cooking sensors from product literature, while dual magnetrons were added based on 

information from the February 2006 edition of Appliance Design. DOE identified low-standbyloss electronic controls by reviewing the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM) data for standby power. 

For commercial clothes washers, DOE reviewed the design options listed in Chapter 3 of 

the 1997 Technical Support Document for Clothes Washers (1997 TSD). Since commercial and 

residential clothes washers now share the same energy efficiency testing method per EPACT 

2005, section 136(f), design options that were valid for the previous rulemaking would likely 

apply to the current commercial clothes washer rulemaking. 

4.2.1 Screened-Out Design Options 

The following section details the specific design options that were screened out prior to 

the engineering analysis, along with the rationale for elimination. 

The technologies identified in the market and technology assessment were evaluated 

pursuant to the criteria set out in The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA 

or the Act). (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) EPCA provides criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards, which will achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency the Secretary of 

Energy determines is technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) It also establishes 

guidelines for determining whether a standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)) In view of the EPCA requirements for determining whether a standard is 

technologically feasible and economically justified, Appendix A to subpart C of Title 10 Code of 

Federal Regulations Part 430 (10 CFR Part 430), Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for 

Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products (the 

Process Rule), sets forth procedures to guide DOE in the consideration and promulgation of new 

or revised product efficiency standards under EPCA. These procedures elaborate on the 

statutory criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6313 and in part eliminate problematic technologies early 

in the process of revising an energy efficiency standard. Under the guidelines, before publishing 

an ANOPR, DOE eliminates from consideration technologies that present unacceptable problems 

with respect to the following four factors: 

(1) Technological feasibility. If it is determined that a technology has not been 

incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes, then that technology will not be 

considered further. 

4-2 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
(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 effective date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility to consumers. If a technology is determined to have 

significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or 

results in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, size, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as 

products generally available in the U.S. at the time, it will not be considered further. 

(4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology will have significant 

adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further. 

The following sections detail the design options that were screened out for each product 

covered by this rulemaking and the reasons why each were eliminated. 

4.2.1.1 Dishwashers 

For dishwashers, DOE screened out reduced inlet-water temperature, supercritical 

carbon dioxide washing, and ultrasonic washing technologies, for the reasons that follow 

Reduced inlet-water temperature 

Reduced inlet-water temperature requires that dishwashers tap the cold water line for 

their water supply. Since most dishwashers in the U.S. tap the hot water line, this design option 

would require significant alteration of existing dishwasher installations in order to accommodate 

newly-purchased units incorporating this design option. Therefore, DOE believes that it would 

not be practicable to install this technology on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time of the effective date of an amended standard. 

Supercritical carbon dioxide washing 

Supercritical carbon dioxide washing, which uses supercritical carbon dioxide instead of 

conventional detergent and water to wash dishes, is currently being researched. Thus, DOE 

believes that it would not be practicable to manufacture, install and service this technology on 

the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of an amended 

standard. Furthermore, because this technology is in the research stage, it is not yet possible to 

assess whether it will have any adverse impacts on equipment utility to consumers or equipment 

availability, or any adverse impacts on consumers' health or safety. 

Ultrasonic washing 

A dishwasher using ultrasonic waves to generate a cleaning mist has been demonstrated. 

However, this model did not use ultrasonic waves in a standing fluid to clean dishes, and 

4-3 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
additionally relied on ion generation for further cleaning. Ultrasonic dishwashing based upon 

soiled-dish immersion in a fluid which is then excited by ultrasonic waves has not been 

demonstrated. In an immersion-based ultrasonic dishwasher, standing ultrasonic waves within 

the washing cavity and the force of bubble cavitation implosion can damage fragile dishware. 

The low water temperatures utilized by ultrasonic dishwashers may also lead to a perceived 

decrease in consumer utility, since consumers expect hot water in the dishwasher to sterilize 

dishes. Since no manufacturer currently produce ultrasonic dishwashers in the U.S., it is 

impossible to assess whether this design option would have any impacts on consumers’ health or 

safety, or product availability. 

4.2.1.2 Dehumidifiers 

For dehumidifiers, all technologies meet the screening criteria. 

4.2.1.3 Cooking Products 

For gas cooktops, DOE screened out catalytic burners, radiant gas burners, reduced 

excess air at burner, and reflective surfaces for the reasons that follow. 

Catalytic burners 

DOE is not aware of any commercialized catalytic burners for gas cooktops, so DOE 

believes that it would not be practicable to manufacture, install and service this technology on 

the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of an amended 

standard. Also, because this technology is in the research stage, it is not possible to assess 

whether it will have any adverse impacts on equipment utility to consumers or equipment 

availability, or any adverse impacts on consumers' health or safety. 

Radiant gas burners 

In the previous rulemaking, manufacturers asserted that the operating characteristics of an 

infrared (IR)-jet radiant burner are such that it is difficult to maintain a low burner input rate for 

many cooktop functions. They stated that field testing for residential ranges was discontinued 

because test users were unable to turn down the burner satisfactorily.1

 Without an adequate “turn 

down” capability, the burner would not be able to pass the American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) Z21.1-2005, Household Cooking Gas Appliances standard. 

Although a silicon carbide radiant burner has been tested to the Japanese Industrial 

Standard, it is also not known how either type of radiant burner would perform under DOE test 

conditions. Since DOE lacks relevant test data to evaluate potential impacts on consumers’ 

health and safety, this design option was not analyzed for gas cooktops. 

4-4 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Reduced excess air at burner 

For the 1996 TSD, the Gas Research Institute (GRI, now known as the Gas Technology 

Institute) submitted a report which analyzed this design option and was submitted as a comment 

to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in the previous rulemaking2. GRI concluded that 

the efficiency increase of this design option was not measurable at that time. They pointed out 

that the burner described by DOE did not exist on the market and thus there were no designs that 

could be evaluated. DOE is unaware of any changes to that situation. GRI also noted that use of 

this design option may cause a safety issue due to the possibility of increased carbon monoxide 

(CO) production. 

Reduced excess air at the burner has not been commercialized, and DOE believes that it 

would not be practicable to manufacture, install and service this technology on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of an amended standard. 

Also, because this technology is undeveloped, it is not possible to assess whether it will have any 

adverse impacts on equipment utility to consumers or equipment availability, or any adverse 

impacts on consumers' health or safety. . 

Reflective surfaces 

As reported in the 1996 TSD, manufacturers stated that any increase in efficiency due to 

a reflective surface could easily be negated if the consumer fails to regularly clean the surface or 

uses an abrasive pad to clean the surface. Therefore, it would be necessary to replace reflective 

pans periodically at a high replacement cost. Also, because this technology has not been 

commercialized, it is not possible to assess whether it will have any other adverse impacts on 

equipment utility to consumers or equipment availability or any adverse impacts on consumers’ 

health or safety. 

For electric open (coil) cooktops, DOE screened out reflective surfaces, for the reasons 

that follow. 

Reflective surfaces 

As reported in the 1996 TSD, manufacturers stated that any increase in efficiency due to 

a reflective surface could easily be negated if the consumer fails to regularly clean the surface or 

uses an abrasive pad to clean the surface. Therefore, it would be necessary to replace reflective 

pans periodically at a high replacement cost. Also, because this technology has not been 

commercialized, it is not possible to assess whether it will have any other adverse impacts on 

equipment utility to consumers or equipment availability, or any adverse impacts on consumers’ 

health or safety. 

For electric smooth cooktops, all technologies meet the screening criteria. 

For ovens, DOE screened out added insulation, bi-radiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no 

oven door window, oven separator, reduced thermal mass, and reflective surfaces, for the reasons 

4-5 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
that follow. 

Added insulation 

Although some analyses indicated energy consumption could be reduced by increasing 

the thickness of the insulation in the cabinet walls and doors from 2 inches to 4 inches, consumer 

utility would be negatively impacted, since the oven cavity volume would have to be reduced to 

maintain standardized exterior dimensions. The reduced oven cavity volume would limit the size 

of large items which could be cooked in the oven. For this reason, this design option was not 

analyzed. However, it should be noted that improved insulation, consisting of higher-density 

insulation with the baseline 2-inch thickness, was still analyzed for standard gas and electric 

ovens. This higher-density insulation is already used for self-clean gas and electric ovens. 

Bi-radiant oven (electric only) 

The 1996 TSD assumed that 3 major conditions would have to be met in order to 

consider the bi-radiant oven as a viable design option. These included the use of low-emissivity 

cavity lining materials, electronic controls, and highly-absorptive baking and roasting utensils. 

While electronic controls are currently in widespread use in electric ovens, cavity maintenance 

issues and the requirement for specialized cookware negatively impact consumer utility. In 

addition, there is currently no such product on the market and the last working prototype known 

to DOE was tested in the 1970s. 

Halogen lamp oven (electric only) 

While GE Consumer & Industrial (GE) currently markets a line of electric ovens that 

incorporates halogen elements along with conventional resistance heating elements, microwave 

heating, and optionally, a convection system, DOE is not aware of any ovens that utilize halogen 

lamps alone as the heating element, and no data were found or submitted to demonstrate how 

efficiently halogen elements alone perform relative to conventional ovens. DOE believes that it 

would not be practicable to manufacture, install and service halogen lamps for use in consumer 

cooking products on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the standard’s 

effective date. 

No oven door window 

GRI issued a topical report3

 which discussed this design option in the previous 

rulemaking. The report was submitted as a written comment to the associated NOPR. GRI’s 

experimental tests showed a small savings in annual energy usage (increase in efficiency) for 

both the standard and self-clean ovens by eliminating the door window. However, GRI reported 

there could actually be a net energy loss due to consumer practices, which would be a function of 

the number of times a consumer would open the door to inspect the food while cooking. With 4 

door openings per test (per the DOE test procedure), a standard oven would realize a net energy 

savings of 34 kBtu/yr. For a self-clean oven there is a net energy loss of 3 kBtu/yr. The report 

also stated there would be reduced consumer utility and the possibility of failure of delicate food 

4-6 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
items (e.g., soufflés), as well as decreased safety without the window due to increased risk of 

burns from additional door openings while the oven is in use. 

Oven separator 

U.S. manufacturers stated in the previous rulemaking that the use of an oven separator 

has been researched but has never been put into production because of problems it would cause 

both manufacturers and consumers. With regard to conventional gas ovens, manufacturers stated 

that the separator could not be economically designed for improved efficiency, though an 

acceptable design for gas convection ovens might be possible. With regard to electric ovens, 

manufacturers asserted that the separator would require the installation of an additional element 

and a non-conventional oven-control system. Manufacturers also stated that it would be difficult 

to obtain Underwriters Laboratory (UL) and American Gas Association (AGA) approvals and 

meet existing ANSI standards because of the effect the separator would have on safety and 

performance. Manufacturers further stated that consumer acceptance would probably be low 

because appliances such as microwave and toaster ovens already exist to cook small loads. In 

addition, the separator would have to be designed to be “fool-proof” to prevent consumers from 

accidentally installing it incorrectly. With regard to energy use, the additional metal added to the 

oven by the separator (increased thermal mass) might result in increased energy losses, although 

data provided by AHAM indicated an increase in efficiency of approximately 0.82 percentage 

points in an electric oven. However, the anticipated negative impacts on consumer utility and 

safety, along with practicability to manufacture, resulted in DOE screening out the oven 

separator from further analysis. 

Reduced thermal mass 

Manufacturers commented in the 1996 TSD that thermal mass reduction was not possible 

for then-manufactured electric and gas ovens. They stated that the oven walls must provide 

strong enough support to hold racks when baking heavy items (i.e., turkeys or large roasts). 

Oven metal gauges could not be reduced any further without risking cracking and greater heat 

losses.4

 DOE believes this situation is still the case in current ovens. Due to issues of structural 

integrity during use and transportation as well as the issue of consumer product safety, this 

design option was not analyzed. 

Reflective surfaces 

Manufacturers stated in the previous rulemaking that it has been very difficult to obtain 

satisfactory cooking performance with reflective surfaces. The reflective materials degrade after 

the first baking function and continue to degrade through the life of the product. This is 

especially true of self-cleaning ovens as the self-cleaning process damages the reflective walls 

and negates any possible energy savings.5

 GRI6

 performed tests on this design option which resulted in a decrease in energy 

efficiency. The reflective surface interfered with the convective currents and the thermostat, thus 

fooling the thermostat into cycling. They reported that increased reflectance from the chrome4-7 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
plated inner surface of the oven caused repeated thermostat cycling, that “might have contributed 

to the higher energy consumption” which resulted in a 12.61 percent decrease in energy 

efficiency. Arthur D. Little Inc. (ADL)7

 also commented that the reflected radiation was 

different from the normal radiation emitted by the oven cavities in use at the time. 

Based on these studies, it is uncertain whether, or how much, energy savings is realizable 

with this design option. A smarter controller for the oven seems to be a reasonable fix for the 

problem. However, there is a general lack of sophistication in the technology in terms of 

maintaining clean, reflective surfaces over the lifetime of the product. For these reasons, this 

design option was not analyzed. 

For microwave ovens, all technologies meet the screening criteria. 

4.2.1.4 Commercial Clothes Washers 

For commercial clothes washers, DOE screened out bubble action, electric 

disassociation of water, ozonated laundering, reduced thermal mass, suds saving, and ultrasonic 

washing for the reasons that follow. 

Bubble action 

Although bubble washing has been incorporated into commercial products, production is 

extremely limited and further commercialization would require manufacturers to develop entirely 

new platforms. Therefore, DOE does not believe that this technology would be practicable to 

manufacture, install, and service on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of 

the effective date of an amended standard. 

Electric disassociation of water 

Electric disassociation of water is in the research stage, so DOE believes that it would not 

be practicable to manufacture, install and service this technology on the scale necessary to serve 

the relevant market at the time of the effective date of an amended standard. Also, because this 

technology is in the research stage, it is not possible to assess whether it will have any adverse 

impacts on equipment utility to consumers or equipment availability, or any adverse impacts on 

consumers' health or safety. 

Ozonated laundering 

Ozonated laundering is in the research stage, so DOE believes that it would not be 

practicable to manufacture, install and service this technology on the scale necessary to serve the 

relevant market at the time of the effective date of an amended standard. Also, because this 

technology is in the research stage, it is not possible to assess whether it will have any adverse 

impacts on equipment utility to consumers or equipment availability, or any adverse impacts on 

consumers' health or safety. 

4-8 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Reduced thermal mass 

Reduced thermal mass has not been incorporated into commercial products, so DOE 

believes that it would not be practicable to manufacture, install and service this technology on 

the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of an amended 

standard. Also, because this technology has not been incorporated into clothes washers, it is not 

possible to assess whether it will have any adverse impacts on equipment utility to consumers or 

equipment availability, or any adverse impacts on consumers' health or safety. 

Suds saving 

Suds-saving residential clothes washers were previously commercially available, but 

required an adjacent wash tub to store suds in between wash cycles. Due to these installation 

requirements, DOE believes that suds-saving clothes washers would be impractical to install in 

many locations. Suds-saving clothes washers reduce consumer utility by requiring consumers to 

occupy space adjacent to the washer with an additional washtub. In a commercial setting, this 

may limit the number of clothes washers that may be installed. In order to fully capture the 

energy saving benefits of suds saving, consumers must wash multiple loads of laundry 

sequentially. Delays between washing cycles allow the saved water to cool, reducing wash 

performance and energy savings. Finally, suds-saving washers can carry over heavy soiling 

between clothing loads, reducing wash performance as well. Therefore, DOE will not consider 

suds saving as a design option for improving the energy efficiency of commercial clothes 

washers. 

Ultrasonic washing 

Ultrasonic washing has been demonstrated in clothes washers, but the ultrasonic clothes 

washer did not adequately remove soil from the clothes. Ultrasonic clothes washing would 

therefore reduce consumer utility by not adequately washing clothes. In addition, bubble 

cavitations caused by standing ultrasonic waves could potentially damage some fragile clothing 

or clothing fasteners, further reducing consumer utility. Since no manufacturers currently 

produce ultrasonic clothes washers, it is impossible to assess whether it will have any impacts on 

consumer’s health or safety, or product availability. 

4.2.2 Remaining Design Options 

The following sections list the design options for each product covered by this 

rulemaking that were retained by DOE. Each of these technologies will be evaluated further in 

the subsequent engineering analysis. 

4.2.2.1 Dishwashers 

For dishwashers, DOE will consider the following design options for further analysis. 

4-9 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 4.2.1 Retained Design Options for Dishwashers 

1. Condenser drying 

2. Fan/jet drying 

3. Flow-through heating 

4. Improved fill control 

5. Improved food filter 

6. Improved motor efficiency 

7. Improved spray-arm geometry 

8. Increased insulation 

9. Low-standby-loss electronic controls 

10. Microprocessor controls and fuzzy logic, including adaptive or soilsensing controls 

11. Modified sump geometry, with and without dual pumps 

12. Variable washing pressures and flow rates 

4.2.2.2 Dehumidifiers 

For dehumidifiers, DOE will consider the following design options for further analysis. 

Table 4.2.2 Retained Design Options for Dehumidifiers 

1. Built-in hygrometer/humidistat 

2. Improved compressor efficiency 

3. Improved condenser performance 

4. Improved controls 

5. Improved defrost methods 

6. Improved demand-defrost controls 

7. Improved evaporator performance 

8. Improved fan and fan-motor efficiency 

9. Improved flow-control devices 

10. Low-standby-loss electronic controls 

11. Washable air filters 

4.2.2.3 Cooking Products 

For gas cooktops, DOE retained the technologies listed below for further analysis. 

Table 4.2.3 Retained Design Options for Gas Cooktops 

1. Electronic ignition 

2. Insulation 

3. Sealed burners 

4. Thermostatically-controlled burners 

4-10 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
For electric open (coil) cooktops, DOE will consider the following design options for 

further analysis. 

Table 4.2.4 Retained Design Options for Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooktops 

1. Electronic controls 

2. Improved contact conductance 

3. Insulation 

4. Low-standby-loss electronic controls 

For electric smooth cooktops, DOE will analyze the following design options. 

Table 4.2.5 Retained Design Options for Electric Smooth Element Cooktops 

1. Electronic controls 

2. Halogen elements 

3. Induction elements 

4. Low-standby-loss electronic controls 

For gas and electric ovens, DOE retained the following technologies for further analysis. 

Table 4.2.6 Retained Design Options for Gas and Electric Ovens 

1. Forced convection 

2. Improved door seals 

3. Improved insulation 

4. Low-standby-loss electronic controls 

5. Pilotless ignition (gas only) 

6. Radiant burner (gas only) 

7. Reduced conduction losses 

8. Reduced vent rate 

9. Steam cooking 

For microwave ovens, DOE retained the technologies listed below for further analysis. 

4-11 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 4.2.7 Retained Design Options for Microwave Ovens 

1. Added insulation 

2. Cooking sensors 

3. Dual magnetrons 

4. Eliminate or improve ceramic stirrer cover 

5. Improved fan efficiency 

6. Improved magnetron efficiency 

7. Improved power supply efficiency 

8. Low-standby-loss electronic controls 

9. Modified wave guide 

10. Reflective surfaces 

4.2.2.4 Commercial Clothes Washers 

For commercial clothes washers, DOE will consider the following design options for 

further analysis. 

Table 4.2.8 Retained Design Options for Commercial Clothes Washers 

1. Adaptive control systems 

2. Added insulation 

3. Advanced agitation concepts for vertical-axis machines 

4. Automatic water fill control 

5. Direct-drive motor 

6. Horizontal-axis design 

7. Horizontal-axis design with recirculation 

8. Improved fill control 

9. Improved horizontal-axis-washer drum design 

10. Improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture content 

11. Increased motor efficiency 

12. Low-standby-power design 

13. Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology 

14. Steam washing 

15. Thermostatically-controlled mixing valves 

16. Tighter tub tolerance 

4-12 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
REFERENCES 

1 U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 1998. Technical Support Document: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Cooking Products, Washington, DC, 

September, 1998. 

2 Gas Research Institute (GRI). 1994. Topical Report: Technical Input to NAECA 

Rulemaking for Gas-Fired Ranges. Prepared by Battelle, Columbus, OH, American Gas 

Association Laboratories, Cleveland, OH, and Arthur D. Little, Cambridge, MA for Gas 

Appliance Technology Center, Chicago, IL. Comment No. 001 to NOPR, GRI-94/0195, 

July 1994. 

3 Ibid. 

4 U.S. DOE. 1998. Op. cit. 

5 U.S. DOE. 1998. Op. cit. 

6 GRI. 1994. Op. cit. 

7 Arthur D. Little Inc. (ADL). 1994. Electric Oven and Cooktop Data Analysis. Prepared 

by ADL, Cambridge, MA, for Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Reference 

47066, submitted as comments No. 001 to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, July 15, 

1994. 

4-13 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2